1. The petitioners are lessees, in respect of premises, bearing Nos.1-8-194 to 197, respectively, situated at Old Bus Stand, Hanamkonda, Warangal. Smt.K.Prabhavathi and K.Sreedevi are the owners of the said premises. The rents for the premises are in the range of Rs.4,000/-, per month. The petitioners are running different business establishments in the premises.

2. A Firm headed by Sri K.B.D.Prasad, the husband of Smt.K.Sreedevi, borrowed some amount from the respondent-Bank. As a security for repayment of the loan, the premises, referred to above, were mortgaged, together with certain other properties. The loan remained unpaid and default was committed. Therefore, the respondent initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). The physical possession of the premises was taken, and they were sealed and locked. The assistance of the District Collector was taken for this purpose under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the action of the respondent. They contend that the respondent does not have the power, or jurisdiction, to evict them, or to seal, the premises, disabling them from conducting the business.

3. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit, furnishing the details of the mortgage, vis-à-vis the property. It is stated that the sealing of the premises is very much within its competence, and that no exception can be taken to the same. It is also stated that the petitioners themselves offered to vacate the premises, in case they do not emerge as highest bidders in the auction.

4. Heard Sri V.Jithender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri P.A.V.Bala Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The premises, in respect of which the petitioners are tenants, were mortgaged to the respondent. Admittedly, default was committed by the borrower, and the respondent has exercised its powers, under the Act. The Act, no doubt, empowers the respondent to take possession of the premises, and put them to sale, to recover the amount. The manner, in which the possession of the premises of this nature must be taken, assumes significance.

6. On exercise of powers under the Act, the respondent assumes to itself the right to put the property to sale. This is, in a way, comparable to the power of an executing Court to enforce a decree. Any step taken, preceding the sale, can be equated to attachment. The attachment of an immovable property in the course of execution of a decree does not entail in dispossession of a person, who is otherwise entitled to remain in it. Attachment would clothe the Court, with the right to proceed with the sale and to prevent the transfer of that property in any other manner.

7. To state precisely, in case there is a tenant in respect of a building, or agricultural land, which is sought to be sold, in the course of execution, the tenant cannot be evicted, or thrown away, on mere account of attachment. Even if the sale is successfully conducted, tenancy has to be adorned in favour of the highest bidder on conclusion of the sale. The rights of a tenant, or any other, person in possession of the property, would in no way be defeated, on account of attachment. It is, ultimately, for the purchaser of the property to choose whether or not to continue the tenant. In case he decides to evict the tenant, he has to take recourse to law.

8. For all practical purposes, the purchaser steps into the shoes of the original owner. He cannot do what the owner himself could not have done. The assumption of the property in exercise of the powers under the Act does not stand on a higher footing, than that of an attachment of property before sale. Therefore, steps taken by the respondents to seal the premises and thereby disabling the petitioners from undertaking business, cannot be sustained in law.

9. The petitioners have stated in the affidavit that they would intend to participate