Point of law : An aggrieved person other than the principal borrower can seek adjudication of his rights, more particularly a tenant can seek redressal of his grievance as to whether there was a valid and lawful tenancy created much prior to principal borrower depositing the title deeds with the secured creditor. All these rival contentions can be examined in the light of the provisions of Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT :

The captioned appeal is filed by the petitioner to the writ petition assailing the correctness of the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3628/2021.

2. The appellant herein approached the writ court questioning the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the authority under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act'). The writ petition was strongly contested by the respondent No.2/Bank by specifically contending that the appellant has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The learned Single Judge having examined the rival contentions disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The appellant has questioned the said order before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the writ appeal would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that what was challenged before the learned Single Judge was an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Placing reliance on sub-clause (3) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, he would submit to this Court that the appellant has no remedy of an appeal and therefore, has rightly invoked the writ jurisdiction and this aspect is not dealt by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel would further place reliance on Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and would contend before us that where a secured asset is in possession of a lessee under a valid lease, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate have no power to invoke the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, would contend that the impugned order being contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 1 is liable to be examined by the writ court and therefore, he would contend that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable at threshold.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishal N.Kalsaria vs. Bank of India and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 762. Relying on this judgment, he would submit to this Court that where a secured asset is in possession of a lessee/tenant of borrower, tenant is entitled for protection against unjust evictions in the light of the provisions of the Rent Control Act. He would further place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 705 and would contend that Article 300-A confers right to property and on account of action of respondent No.2/Bank, his property rights are affected and therefore, the appellant is entitled to seek redressal of his grievances under writ jurisdiction. On these set of grounds, he would submit to this Court that the learned Single Judge has not examined all these significant details and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, warrants interference at the hands of this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the material on record.

6. The respondent No.1 applied for a housing loan of Rs.1.80 Crores and submitted an application on 18.09.2017. The respondent No.1 pursuant to sanction of loan, deposited title deeds by executing an equitable mortgage deed in favour of the respondent No.2/Bank. This deed was executed on 03.11.2017. Therefore, as on 03.11.2017, a charge was created over the property in question and the respondent No.2/Ban