Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.

Writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a declaration that the word “encumbrances” enumerated in Rule 9(9) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 does not include tenancy arrangements with respect to the secured assets sold as per rule 8 and also for a declaration that the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Enforcements) Rules 2002 does not authorises the eviction of tenants in occupation of secured assets and also for other consequential relief’s. Petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 31-10-2006 received from the bank directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the bank failing which petitioner was informed that coercive steps would be taken to evict the petitioner from the premises. Learned single Judge found no infirmity in the notice issued by the bank and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred.

2. Sri. D. Kishore, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Bank has no legal right to evict the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation Act