THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.11125 of 2010 ORDER: (Per VEJ) The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the action of the first respondent in taking possession of the property mortgaged in its favour, without following due process of law under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased plots bearing Nos.49 and 50, at Chintalkunta, Meerpet Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on 24.03.2005. Thereafter, they have obtained loan of Rs.36,00,000/- against the said plots, for construction of house, and are making the payment promptly. But however, they could not pay some installments. According to them, the present outstanding amount is Rs.43,80,422/-. The shops constructed in the premises in question have been leased out in favour of the second respondent @ Rs.32,499/- per month. While so, the first respondent in collusion with the second respondent had taken away keys of the premises by locking the premises bearing H.No.11-154/A, Plot Nos.49 and 50, Chintalkunta, near Balapur ‘X’ Roads, Mdeerpet Grampanchayat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without following due process of law. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though they have approached the third respondent and submitted a complaint, he has not taken any action. We have perused the material placed on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioners obtained loan after purchasing plot Nos.49 and 50 and constructed house therein, but failed to pay some installments of the loan amount taken from the first respondent. The petitioners state that the second respondent, who is the lessee of the said premises, colluded with the first respondent and handed over the keys of the said premises to it. Therefore the petitioners sought for return of possession of the property. We are of the opinion that the petitioners have not furnished any material particulars with regard to the action taken under Section 13 (4) of the Act, and the date of taking over the possession. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to make an application against the action of the first respondent before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 12th May, 2010. Js.