stated that the respondent has to consider the objections of the petitioners before proceeding to take possession of the property by issuing the possession notice. The action of the respondent in invoking the provisions of the Act 45 of 2002 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principle decided by the Apex Court. It is further stated that the schedule property is a residential house and if they dispossessed, they will be put to serious prejudice and irreparable loss. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners had approached this Court praying for appropriate reliefs. 5. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners had raised housing loan in the year 2000 from the respondent Bank for construction of the house after availing the loan facility for construction. The petitioners utilized the same. It is further stated that it is true that the respondent-Bank had issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, vide notice, dated 09.09.2005, demanding an amount of Rs.2,31,749.21 ps and Rs.2,39,856.00 against the housing loan availed. The allegation that the petitioners, after receipt of the notice, had submitted detailed objections before the respondent is incorrect. It is submitted that the petitioners after receipt of the notice have not submitted any objection petition dated 14.10.2005. There are no objections from the petitioners after expiry of the statutory period. As per the provisions of the Act, the respondent Bank had issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 13.12.2005. The allegation that the respondent proceeded without considering the objections by invoking the provisions of the Act 54 of 2002 is nothing but a false averment, concocted for the purpose
