IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22954 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 22, 2010. Rajdeep Singh .....Petitioner versus Punjab and Sind Bank and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Suveer Sheokand, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant in three shops owned by respondent Nos.2 & 3. The respondent-landlords have taken some loan from respondent No.1-bank by mortgaging these shops. It appears that pursuant to the action taken under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act'), the respondent-bank has taken physical possession of the mortgaged shops and has put its own locks. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner being aggrieved of the measures taken by the bank under Section 13 (4) of the Act, would be well within his right C.W.P.No .22954 of 2010 2 to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. With the liberty afore-mentioned, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner decides not to approach the Tribunal, he may approach the respondent-bank for removal of his articles lying in the shops and the respondent-bank is directed to verify the petitioner's claim, prepared an inventory and permit him to remove his articles as per Rules. Dasti. December 22, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE