ORDER :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Subject matter of both the Writ Petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. We have heard Mr. T.Vijaya Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Dyumani learned counsel for the respondent – Andhra Bank.

3. These two Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that action of the respondent – Andhra Bank in seizing and taking over physical possession of the schedule properties through advocate commissioner without serving any notice on the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. Further prayer made is for a direction to the respondent – Andhra Bank to redeliver the schedule property to the petitioners.

4. It is stated that petitioners are tenants of the schedule property belonging to respondent No.2, who is the landlord. As per description given in the supporting affidavit, petitioners had taken on rent respective premises each measuring about 680 sq. yards wherefrom they are carrying on their jewellery business. Petitioners have been paying rent to respondent No.2 for the last several years. The schedule property is situated at Jam