PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH. *** LPA NO. 1050 of 2009 Date of decision: October 20, 2009. *** The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. & Ors Vs. Ravinder Singh Grewal & Ors. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover. *** Present: Shri Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. *** T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice (Oral) This appeal arises out of an interim order dated 6.10.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.14282 of 2009 whereby the Court has directed restoration of possession of the mortgaged property to the respondent- mortgagor, subject to payment of a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the mortgagee bank. Apart from the fact that the arrangement made under the order is interim in nature which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, we see no reason even on merits to interfere with the directions issued by the Court. We say so for two precise reasons. Firstly because the loan amount of Rs. Four Lacs advanced to the respondent-mortgagor was repayable in instalments spread over a period of 15 years. The loan having been advanced in the year 2005 the same had to be repaid by 2020 or so. Proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Reinforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were all the same initiated by the Bank on account of certain defaults committed by mortgagor in payment of the instalments. It is common ground that the total amount towards said default did not exceed Rs. 60,000/-, against which amount, the court has already directed payment of Rs.50,000/- on 14.09.2009 which the Bank has received. Since the Bank had pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Act, already taken over the possession of residential premises, the learned Single Judge found it just and proper to direct restoration of possession of the residential house subject to a further payment of Rs. 20,000/- to the Bank within one week from the date of order. The total amount, thus, directed to be deposited by the Mortgagor exceeds the amount which -2- was due to the Bank as on date or atleast on the date action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Reinforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was initiated. As at present, therefore, there is no justification for the bank to insist on holding the possession of the property or sale thereof for recovery of entire loan amount advanced by it. Secondly because the house in question appears to be a residential premises. It is not the case of the bank that the owner has any other residential house available to him for use and occupation. Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that looking to the compulsion of the mortgagor for a shelter, the bank has allowed him to continue in one room of the premises taken over by it. Non availability of the accommodation is thus bound to cause immense hardship to the family especially in the coming winter months. In the totality of the above circumstances therefore we do not think the present case to be a fit case for our interference. It shall however be open to the Bank to file an appropriate counter affidavit in the writ petition and an application for such directions as may be found just and proper. With that liberty we dismiss this appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All other civil Misc. applications are also disposed off. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Mahesh Grover) October 20, 2009 Judge Malik