1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning inter alia an order dated 1.4.2015, passed by the learned CMM dismissing his application filed in proceedings pending under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). Secondly, directions are sought to the respondent No.1/Bank to restore the actual physical possession of two shops situated on the ground floor of premises bearing No.4635-4638, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi on the ground that he is a bona fide tenant of the shops much prior to the creation of a mortgage thereof by the respondents No.2 and 3 in favour of the respondent No.1/Bank.

2. Before noting the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to recapitulate the relevant sequence of dates and events that led to passing of the order dated 01.4.2015 by the learned CMM. On 4.12.2006, respondent No.2 (wife of the respondent No.3) had created an equitable mortgage over the subject shop in favour of the respondent No.1/Bank, to enable the respondent No.3 to avail of credit facilities. Later on, respondent No.3 had defaulted in making payments to the respondent No.1/ Bank. As a result, on 31.3.2002, respondent No.1/Bank had declared the account of the respondent No.3, as a NPA, invoked the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and approached the learned ACMM (Central Delhi), Tis Hazari Courts for appointment of a Receiver for taking over possession of the subject shops.

3. Vide order dated 6.11.2009, passed by the learned CMM, a Receiver was appointed to take over the possession of the two shops and deliver the same to the respondent No.1/ Bank. In terms of the above order, the Receiver served a notice dated 19.12.2009 on the respondents No.2 and 3 for taking over possession of the shops on 9.1.2010. On 8.1.2010, knowing that he would not be available on 09.01.2010 to take over possession of the shops, the Receiver served a fresh notice dated 8.1.2010 on the respondents No.2 and 3 for taking over possession on 28.01.2010 and the said notice was also pasted on the doors of both the shops and photographs of the site with the pasted notice were duly taken.

4. On 28.1.2010, the Receiver once again visited the two shops and discovered that one shop consisting of ground floor and basement with cemented staircase was lying unlocked, empty and vacant. The second shop was found to be locked. The Receiver directed a locksmith accompanying him to break open the lock of the second shop. After opening the shop some goods were found lying there. The said goods were inventorized by the Receiver and new locks were affixed on both the shops and keys thereof were handed over to the officers of the respondent No.1/Bank present at the spot. A report dated 5.2.2010, recording inter alia the said proceedings was prepared by the Receiver and filed in the court of the learned CMM (Annexure P-4).

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Receiver, on 03.2.2010 the petitioner had filed an application before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal-III, Delhi (DRT-III) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. During the pendency of the said application, on 18.3.2010, the petitioner gave his no objection for the sale of the subject shop to the respondent No.1/Bank. Subsequently, vide order dated 8.12.2012, the DRT-III dismissed the petitioner’s application by holding that he was not even in possession of the subject shop as he had failed to file any documents or rent receipts to show that he was a tenant or in possession thereof (Annexure P-8). Reference was also made to the report of the Receiver to the effect that Shop No.6 was found locked and the lock had to be broken for preparing an inventory of the goods lying inside.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the DRT, on 03.1.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (DRAT) under