JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - The appellant claims to be a tenant. The first respondent is the Board of Directors of the second respondent Bank; the third respondent, the authorised officer, that is the Assistant General Manager of the Bank; and the fourth respondent, according to the Bank, does not exist.

2. To ascertain the identity of the fourth respondent, I have asked the learned counsel for the appellant. She has then consulted the appellant present in the Court. He too has said he has no idea.

3. The fifth and sixth respondents are the borrowers. The seventh respondent is the District Magistrate; the eighth respondent is the Mamlatdar; and the ninth respondent, the SI of Police.

4. As narrated by both the learned counsel, the fifth and sixth respondents borrowed the money in 2008 and later defaulted in repaying it. So the Bank has approached the DRT to recover that money, and those proceedings are said to be pending. Pending those proceedings, the Bank invoked the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ("the Securitisation Act"). It issued notice under Section 13 of the Securitisation Act. It was on 24.11.20