(1) The writ petitioner questions the propriety of the respondent bank in having caused the petitioner to be dispossessed from a property without following due process pf law.

(2) The petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement with Super Tech Limited for being inducted as a monthly tenant at an apartment measuring about 365.72 sq.ft. on the sixth floor of premises No. 18A, Park Street. The agreement, a copy whereof is annexure P 2 to the petition, is dated December 4, 2002. The document, on a stamp paper of Rs.10/-, records that a security deposit of Rs.1 lakh had been paid by the petitioner which was refundable without interest at the time of the petitioner vacating the premises. The tenancy was to be for a period of 15 years and the petitioner was to use the flat either for residential or business purpose.

(3) At the fifth paragraph of the petition it is averred that on November 16, 2005 some persons "claiming themselves to be officers of Allahabad Bank" called at the petitioners office at the said premises and represented that since the "petitioners landlord" had failed to repay a loan of Rs. 1,80,57,350/-, an officer of the bank authorised under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the said Act) was empowered to take possession of the premises which had been mortgaged to the bank. It is stated in the petition that the authorised officer of the bank took symbolic possession of the premises since the petitioner was in possession thereof. It is evident from paragraph 5 of the petition that the bank attempted to serve a notice on the petitioner but the "petitioner refused to accept the notice."

(4) The narration in the petition quantum leaps to March, 2009. The petitioner says that he had "altogether forgotten about the incident when suddenly on 13.03.2009 the authorised officer of (the bank) along with a team of police personnel... and local musclemen forced into (the) petitioners office." The petitioner claims to have been dispossessed on such date and subsequent enquiry by the petitioner revealed that the bank had approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for police protection to obtain possession of the premises. A copy of the Magistrates Order of September 9, 2008 has been appended to the petition. It is the petitioners case that the bank suppressed the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the property at the time that it approached the Magistrate under Section 14 of the said Act. The petitioner insists that the bank could not have obtained possession of the property from the petitioner without the petitioner having due notice of any proceedings in such regard and without any adjudication being made in the petitioners presenca

(5) The petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court reported at AIR 2008 Calcutta 9 : (2008)1 WBLR (Cal) 106 (Manager, UCO Bank v. Samar Sarkar and Ors.). In that case an order of dismissal of a defendants application for rejection of a plaint was carried in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. The plaintiff had sought a declaration of his tenancy rights under a constituent of a bank and a further declaration that the plaintiff could not be evicted without due process of law and ancillary reliefs. The defendant bank applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the suit was barred under Sections 13, 17 and 34 of the said Act of 2002. The revisional application failed upon the following view taken at paragraph 10 of the report: "10. None of the provisions of the said Act authorises the bank to recover possession from a tenant under the borrower in a mortgaged property in the process of recovery of its dues from its borrower. If that be so, the bank cannot evict the tenant of a borrower from a mortgaged property by virtue of any of the provisions of the said Act and if any action of the bank which is not protected under the said Act, is challenged by su