the petitioner. Another letter dated 05.05.2015 wherein the recovery intimation of Rs.6,25,549/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum has been levied and has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner though has said that he had vacated the house but nothing is on record to show/establish such fact. The SECL on the other hand has submitted that the house was occupied by the petitioner, therefore, two contradictory statements came to fore, wherein the petitioner has stated that he has vacated the premises whereas the SECL contended that he continued with the possession of the house. These are the disputed question of facts and cannot be adjudicated, as to who was actually in possession, which can only be established during the course of trial when the evidence are led before the competent Court. Apart from the fact that the SECL has filed a document Annexure R-1, which is not disputed to be issued by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner stated that he handed over the possession on 31.03.2015, therefore, according to the Annexure R-1, which is subject to just exception, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate as to who was in possession as disputed facts have surfaced. In the result, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to evaluate the facts of evidence on the probabilities and accept the averments of either party. The petitions therefore fail and are hereby dismissed.
