JUDGMENT :

Bela M. Trivedi, J.

1. The petitioner-Shri Bavanji Jethabhai Sutaria claiming to be the tenant of the respondent No. 5 in respect of the Plot No. 6 admeasuring 933.25 sq.mts. of Revenue Survey No. 1114 situated within the city limits of Jamnagar has filed the present petition seeking following main relief:

"B. Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb/take the possession and/or obstruct the possession and/or evict/dispossess from Plot No. 6 collectively admeasuring total 933.25 sq. metres of Revenue Survey No. 1114 situated within the city limits of Jamnagar and which are also well-known as "Vraj - 2" which are in physical possession of the petitioner without following due process of law."

2. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner had entered into a rent agreement/lease agreement on 1-4-2012 with the respondent No. 5 in respect of the plots in question for a period of 10 years. The respondent No. 5 was making hindrances in the petitioner's putting up fence and were not giving N.O.C. for electric connection, and therefore, the petitioner had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 158 of 2017 against the said respondent No. 5 in the Civil Court, Jamnagar seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Pending the said suit, the parties had arrived at a settlement on 8-7-2017, whereby the respondent No. 5 gave no objection if the suit was allowed. Accordingly the suit came to be allowed vide the decree dated 8-7-2017 passed by the Civil Court, Jamnagar. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 8-10-2016, 9-12-2016, 22-1-2017 and 17-7-2017 public notices were issued for the auction sale of the suit plots in the local newspapers by the respondent No. 4-Axis Bank Limited. The petitioner had missed out the earlier public notices, however, when he came to know about the notice dated 17-7-2017, the petitioner through his Advocate had issued a public notice on 22-8-2017. The petitioner at that time came to know that the respondent No. 6 i.e. M/s. Giriraj Enterprise had availed cash-credit facilities from the respondent No. 4-Bank to the tune of Rs. 5 Crores and failed to repay the dues within the prescribed time-limit and therefore, the respondent No. 4 had initiated action against the respondent No. 6 under the provisions contained in the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act. Since, the possession of the petitioner of the plots in question were at stake, and the respondent-Bank and its officials were harassing the petitioner, the petition has been filed.

3. The petition has been resisted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by filing affidavit-in-reply contending inter alia that the petition was thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable in view of the various pronouncements of decisions by the Supreme Court and this Court. It has also been contended that the petitioner had not come with clean hands and suppressed material facts from the Court.

4. The Co-ordinate Bench by passing the order on 29-9-2017, had directed the parties to maintain status quo.

5. Learned Advocate Ms. Shivani Rajpurohit appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A.M. Thacker for respondent Nos. 7 to 13 raising preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the present petition vehemently submitted that the petition without exhausting the statutory efficacious remedy by filing appropriate proceeding before the D.R.T., was not maintainable. They have placed reliance of decision of Supreme Court in case of Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon, reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110 and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011 (2) SCC 782. The learned Advocates for the concerned respondents have also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas, reported in 2003 (10) SCC 733, and of this Court in case of Ionic Metalliks v. Union of India, reported in 2015 (2) GLH 156, to submit that the respondent-Bank being the private Bank, cannot be called pub