Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

The petitioner, claiming to be the tenant/lessee under the 3rd respondent in respect of the schedule property situated at Old Door No.93, New Door No.211, V.O.C.Salai, (wall Tax Road), Park Town, Chennai - 600 008 comprised in Resurvey No.8609/2, C.C.No.2892, Block No.73, George Town Division, within the limits of Corporation of Chennai, seeks to question the legality and validity of the order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (for short "the CMM") in Crl.M.P. No.101 of 2015.

2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that according to the petitioner, he is in possession and occupation of the aforestated property by virtue of lease agreement dated 8.8.2005 executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner on payment of a lease deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- for a period of three years. Subsequently, on account of the new lease agreement executed between the parties on 22.8.2011, the lease period was further extended for a period of three years from 08.08.2011 by paying lease amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the 3rd respondent. Later, the lease agreement has been renewed by the petitioner on 21.8.2014 for a period of 3 years by paying lease deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- to the 3rd respondent. The property in question is a secured asset as it appears that the 3rd respondent obtained loan to the tune of Rs.9,25,000/- from the 1st respondent Bank and the 4th respondent guaranteed the said credit facility. The 3rd respondent created equitable mortgage of immovable property. On default of the 3rd respondent in repayment, the account of the 3rd respondent was classified as Non Performing asset on 30.11.2010. A demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act") was issued by the 1st respondent on 17.05.2011. Thereafter, a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was also issued on 30.08.2011 and symbolic possession of the schedule premises was taken affixing notice on the secured asset and published in the newspapers also on 04.09.2011. The first respondent Bank thereafter preferred an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, seeking assistance for taking over possession of the said secured asset. The CMM vide the impugned order dated 09.02.2015, held that the first respondent Bank was entitled to take possession of the scheduled asset and also provided assistance thereon.

3. Sri. R. Sagadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Harshan Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. and others (2014) 6 SCC 1), would submit that the petitioner, being a lessee, has a right to enjoy the lease property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease, irrespective of whether the subsequent mortgagee has knowledge of the said lease or not. It is further contended that the impugned order cannot be passed as the lease was executed before the grant of loan, without determining the lease, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Mr.D.Simon, learned counsel for the first respondent Bank would submit that if the lease has been created by unregistered lease agreement, the petitioner has no right to continue in the said property and as such, the petitioner is liable to establish that the lease executed was properly registered in accordance with the provisions of law.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

6. The Supreme Court, in Harshan Govardhan Sondagar (2014) 6 SCC 1), while considering the lessee's right of the secured property/asset, observed as under:

"28. A reading of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 would show that the possession notice will have to be affixed on the outer door or