A.K. Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. U.C. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent Bank accepted a request for grant of loan to the petitioners for the purpose of constructing a residential house and, accordingly, a sanction letter was issued on 09.05.2014 for Rs. 22,00,000/- (Twenty Two Lakhs). The petitioners executed a Memodandum of Entry dated 10.05.2014 by depositing documents pertaining to mortgage of immovable property in favour of the respondent bank.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioners call into question a possession notice dated 09.05.2017.

4. A perusal of the possession notice dated 09.05.2017 goes to show that a demand notice dated 18.01.2017 was issued asking the present petitioners to repay an amount of Rs. 22,03,605.95, as on 31.10.2016, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice together with further interest at the contractual rate plus costs, charges and expenses till date of payment.

5. As the petitioners/the borrowers had failed to repay the amount, the Bank had taken possession of the mortgaged property in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, SARFAESI Act) on 09.05.2017. The description of the property which was taken over possession is indicated in the said possession notice.

6. The petitioners in the writ petition have not stated about issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. How much amount they had paid by way of repayment have also not been stated.

7. When this application was moved on 18.04.2018, the Court had passed the following order :-

"Heard Mr. U.C. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Three petitioners have joined together and have instituted the present common proceeding. Petitioner No.3 is the widow of late Bijoy Chandra Rabha whereas petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are her sons.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of possession notice dated 09.05.2017.

It is stated that for the purpose of constructing their residential house, petitioners had availed a loan from the Bank of Baroda, Zoo Road Tiniali Branch, Guwahati (Bank). The loan amount was Rs. 22 lakhs to be repaid in 192 monthly installments with EMI at Rs. 23,353.00. The loan was sanctioned on 09.05.2014. For availing the above loan, petitioners had mortgaged a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas situated at Satgaon, Guwahati.

According to the petitioners, they started depositing EMI after the moratorium period but could not continue with their deposit because of financial hardship. For failure to do so, Bank had issued possession notice dated 09.05.2017. Even thereafter, petitioners continued to make deposits into the loan account which was accepted by the Bank. According to the petitioners, they have deposited an amount of Rs. 5,51,330.00 during the period from 27.05.2014 to 16.03.2018. Despite request by the petitioners to withdraw the possession notice, Bank has refused to do so.

Hence, this writ petition.

When the matter was called upon in the first half, we enquired from Mr. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioners, as to how much amount petitioners would be able to deposit, he sought for time to obtain instructions. Accordingly, we deferred the matter till the second half. Now on instruction, Mr. Rabha submits that by 25.04.2018, petitioners will deposit Rs. 50,000.00 and thereafter they will deposit every month the EMI amount of Rs. 23,353.00.

Issue notice, returnable 6 weeks.

Steps by registered post with AD within three days.

Let the petitioners deposit Rs. 50,000.00 by 25.04.2018 and also the EMI amount by the 10th day of May, 2018. There will be no bar for the petitioners to deposit more than the EMI amount.

Subject to the above, there shall be stay of the impugned possession notice dated 09.05.2017.

Let this matter be called upon agai