ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.6.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 19221 of 2015 filed by respondents 1 to 12. Appellant is the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition. The appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as the fourth respondent, whereas respondents 1 to 12 shall be referred to as the petitioners and other respondents shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are.

2. The first respondent owns 93.44 cents of land consisting four storied commercial building and two storied shopping complex in the city of Calicut. The first respondent obtained a loan of Rs. 4 Crore from the United Bank of India, the second respondent after mortgaging the aforesaid property in favour of the Bank. An agreement dated 27.12.2004 was entered into between respondents 1 and 2. The petitioners claim to be tenants of the property in question. The first petitioner claims that the first respondent has leased out a portion of the premises by registered lease dated 16.6.2004 for 99 years, whereas the second petitioner claims registered lease for 99 years on 22.5.2004. The first petitioner made a security deposit of Rs. 5 Lakhs, whereas the second petitioner made security deposit of Rs. 3 Lakhs. Petitioners 3 to 11 also claim registered leases for 99/51 years in the year 2005-2006. The first respondent defaulted in payment of the loan amount. Consequently, the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act, 2002). The Bank invoked power under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. A sale notice dated 2.7.2009 was issued by the Bank for sale of the mortgaged assets on as is where is basis. The sale notice mentioned an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,99,47,157/-. Private sale dated 3.12.2009 was made by the Bank in favour of the third respondent. There has been various litigations at the instance of the auction purchaser/Bank and the first respondent in context of sale, which does not require to be mentioned for the purposes of the present case.

3. The petitioners claiming to be lease holders filed S.A. No. 18 of 2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 challenging the sale as well as claiming relief of subrogation and redemption of mortgage. Certain other reliefs were also claimed in the Application. The Debt Recovery Tribunal by its order dated 29.10.2012 rejected the application. The Tribunal held that the applicants are not at all the aggrieved persons as of now and they have no locus standi to seek any remedy from the Tribunal at this juncture. The contention of the appellants regarding the right of redemption of mortgage and subrogation were held not sustainable. The recourse taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act, 2002 was held to be in accordance with law. The second respondent filed an application on 11.9.2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 praying for an order for taking physical possession of the mortgaged assets. On 4.10.2013 the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession. The applicants were not impleaded in the application. The applicants, after the order dated 4.10.2013, filed an application being C.M.P. No. 2155 of 2013 dated 11.10.2013 praying recall of the order dated 4.10.2013. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 2.6.2015 rejected the application of the petitioners observing that the petitioners did not produce any legally recognisable lease deed or document whereby any right or interest is created in their favour in respect of any portion of the secured asset, to convince the court, prima faice, that they are tenants. Challenging the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 2.6.2015 the petitioners filed W.P. (C) N