MC 16/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL Heard Dr. G. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well Mr. B. Ch akraborty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Also heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the owner of the property i.e. respondent No. 5 as well as Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, for res pondent No. 1. The petitioners herein are the tenants of a commercial complex situated at Motilal Nehru Road, Panbazar. Against the said property, the respondent No. 5 had taken a loan from the Bank in the name of M/s. Ganesh Electrical Stores. Th ereafter, by another account, the wife of the said respondent No. 5 had also tak en similar loan from the Bank. Ultimately, both the loan accounts became non-pe rforming assets (NPA) and the Bank resorted to the provision of the Securitisati on and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest A ct, 2002 (in short, the Act) and has taken over possession of the property by se ction 13(4) of the said Act. The said action of the bank are under challenge at the instance of the account holders before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Assam, Guwaha ti, (in short, DRT) being case No. M.A. 32 of 2010 as well as O.A. 10 of 2008, w hich are now pending. As noticed earlier in the present writ application, the tenants are seek ing directions to the Bank to restore their possession since they do not owe any money to the Bank. In other words, the petitioners’ case is that the loan amoun t has not yet refunded by the landlord and his partner for which the tenants sho uld not suffer. During the pendency of the case vide order dated 8/9. 12.2010, this cour t allowed the Bank authority to settle the dispute with the petitioners (meaning thereby with the tenants), and this order is under challenge in Misc. Case No. 16 of 2011. Shri N.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 5 submitted that the aforesaid order was passed without hearing him. Shri Das also submitte d that by virtue of the order dated 8/9.12.2010, the Bank has been authorised to sell the entire property to the tenants and if that happens, the appeal and Mis c. case filed before the DRT will become infructuous. In my considered opinion, in the dispute between the account holders/ la ndlord and the Bank, the tenants should not suffer. Having regard to all the asp ects of the case, the Bank is allowed to negotiate the dispute in respect of the dues with involvement of the landlord/ account holders. According to Dr. Lal, the Bank has already finalised the terms and condi tions to take back the tenants in the ground floor and first floor of the buildi ng, subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 53,00,000/- (Rupees fifty three lacs) onl y with stipulation that the possession of the respondent No. 5 shall be restored in the second floor. Apparently, the negotiation appears to be a reasonable one. At the same time it was without participation of the landlord. Hence, if the said deal is a llowed to be implemented, the appeal and the Misc. application filed before the DRT would become infructuous. As such, the Bank is directed to hold a fresh meet ing within one week from today alongwith the tenants as well as the landlord. Se parate notices upon the landlord are also not necessary, since the respondent No . 5 is a partner in the firm and the second account holder is his wife. Preferab ly, the meeting may be held on 15.02.2011. It is also made clear that if the landlord/ account holders do not come to the terms of the Bank, the Bank shall be at liberty to negotiate the deal sep arately with the tenants. However, any such agreement shall be subject to the de cision of the Tribunal in the pending cases. In view of the aforesaid order, Shri N.C. Das, learned senior counsel fo r the respondent No. 5 submitted that the writ appeal filed by the respondent No . 5 before this court shall be withdrawn. With the above directions, the writ petition as well as Misc. Cases are disposed of.