SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.

The facts involved in both writ petitions are intertwined and parties are also same and as such, both writ petitions are considered and decided by this common order.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant writ petitions are that the petitioner availed loan from the respondent bank in the form of cash credit to the credit of Rs.12,00,00,000/- and two term loans to the tune of Rs.7,50,82,000/- and 2,45,00,000/- respectively, on mortgage of petitioner's scheduled land. Owing to the default committed by the petitioner in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent bank issued 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”) on 30 June 2013, followed by possession notices dated 09 December 2013 in respect of the petitioner's shop premises and 11 December 2013 in respect of the petitioner's residential property, respectively. Assailing the possession notice dated 11 December 2013 issued in respect of his residential property, the petitioner filed a SARFAESI Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai in S.A. No.343 of 2013 and pending the said application, e-auction sale notice dated 15 September 2014 was issued, fixing the date of e-auction as 20 October 2014. Questioning the legality and validity of the said e-auction sale notice, the petitioner has filed one of the instant writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.27520 of 2014.

3. On 17 October 2014, a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank, by way of an interim order, permitted the auction to go on as scheduled on 20 October 2014, however, stayed the confirmation of auction.

4. While so, pending the aforesaid writ petition, viz., W.P. No.27520 of 2014 and the SARFAESI Application in S.A. No.343 of 2013, on 21 March 2014, the respondent bank filed a petition before the District Magistrate/District Collector, Kancheepuram, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, for taking possession of the secured asset. The said authority, on 05 August 2014, directed the Tahsildar, Sozhinganallur, Kanchipuram District, to enquire into the ownership of the property in question and submit to him a detailed report.

5. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner alleges that on 07 October 2015, the respondent bank and the fourth respondent/auction purchaser, on the strength of the order of the District Magistrate/District Collector, entered into the petitioner's residential property, which was let out on lease to five shops, with police and henchmen and threatened the petitioner's tenants to vacate the premises. Thus, the writ petition in W.P. No.32716 of 2015, seeking a declaration that the action taken by respondents 1 to 4 in taking possession of the petitioner's shop premises on 07 October 2015 is illegal, when the creation of security interest is under challenge in W.P. No.27520 of 2014.

6. In W.P.No.27520 of 2014, the challenge is to the e-auction sale notice on the ground that “security interest” was not created properly, as defined under clause (zf) of Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act for want of proper “security agreement”, as defined under clause (zb) of Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act.

7. Rev. Dr. S.N. Amarnath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the security interest is enforceable, which is to be created in terms of Section 2(zf) of the SARFAESI Act. He further contends that there was no security agreement, as required, for creating the security interest. As in the absence of the agreement between the parties, there is no assignment as understood in the common parlance. Mere deposit of title deeds with an intention to create mortgage does not satisfy the requirement of execution of security agreement.

8. The learned counsel further submits that the agreement is r