TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following reliefs : "b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents and/or their men, agents or subordinates and each one of them to show cause as to why the possession of the petitioner in respect of his tenanted shop room on the ground floor at premises No.140/4A, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road, Regent Park, Tollygunj, Kolkata-700040 should not be restored with adequate police assistance forthwith; c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents and/or their men, agents or subordinates in office to show cause as to why after declaring the unlawful eviction of the petitioner from his tenanted shop room by the Learned Recovery Inspector/Receiver, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical, the possession of the petitioner in respect of his tenanted shop room on the ground floor at premises No.140/4A, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road, Regent Park, Tollygunj, Kolkata-700040 should be restored with adequate police assistance forthwith;" 3. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of one shop room in a property detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition by the landlady, namely, Smt. Parul Bala Mitra. After a few months she refused to receive rent from the petitioner and as such the petitioner started depositing the same before the Learned Rent Controller, Kolkata from the month of December, 1979 to July, 1980. On 11th February, 2003 the petitioner received two letters from the office of the Tax Recovery Officer-55, Kolkata for attachment of rent and thereafter, as directed, the petitioner had regularly paid the rent amount to the Income Tax Department. The petitioner was running his business in the said premises with a valid trade licence and suddenly on 12th July, 2017 the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed and evicted. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner came to learn that steps have been taken on the basis of order passed in O.A. No.105/200 and accordingly the petitioner filed an application to intervene in the said proceedings. The said application was considered and rejected with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. 4. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the learned Tribunal erred in law in taking into consideration the documents produced by the petitioner establishing his status as a tenant in respect of a shop room in the concerned property and failed to appreciate that the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed in an illegal manner. The order dated 18th June, 2018 does reveal any independent application of mind and the petitioner's claim has been rejected by a non-speaking order. The provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot be used to frustrate the right of a tenant and his lawful occupation. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India reported in (2016) 3 SCC 762 . 5. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 disputes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the learned Tribunal, upon considering the petitioner's claim, has rightly observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to claim adjudication before the appropriate forum. The order does suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court. 6. The petitioner claimed to be a lawful tenant but failed to produce any valid tenancy agreement and upon considering the petitioner's contention it was observed by the learned Tribunal that a dispute pertaining to tenancy cannot be decided in proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and liberty was granted to claim adjudication before the appropriate forum. There is no error in the decision making process warranting interference of this Court in exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 7. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is also distinguishable on facts and has no manner of application in the instant case 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. There shall however be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.;