M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings of the Third Respondent/Bank in its letter dated 16.12.2015 and to quash the same. Further, it has sought for restraining the Respondents 3 to 5 from in any manner taking possession of the property situated in Site Nos.12, 17 & 18 in R.S.No.9/1 of Punjai Lakkapuram Village, Erode Taluk comprising an extent of 7130 sq. ft except otherwise then in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar V. International Assets Reconstruction Co., Ltd., & Others.

2. According to the Correspondence of the Petitioner's Training College, she is running the institute at land and building situated in Site Nos.12, 17 & 18 in R.S.No.9/1 of Punjai Lakkapuram Village, Erode Taluk comprising an extent of 7130 sq. ft. For running the Technical Training Centre, permission from the authorities was obtained in the year 1979 and further that the Institute is functioning at Karur Main Road, Solar Pudur, Mudakurichi Union, Erode on a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-.

3. The stand of the Petitioner is that the First Respondent is the owner of the land and building in question. As a matter of fact, the 'Tenancy Agreement' dated 05.02.2010 is for a period of 11 months and to be renewed from time to time. In fact, the tenancy expires on 04.06.2016. The Third Respondent/Indian Bank, Chennai with the assistance of Land Revenue Inspector, Mudakurichi Circle, Erode by the impugned proceedings had taken inventory and sealed the institution.

4. The prime plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that as a valid tenant, the Petitioner was not issued with any notice in regard to the impugned proceedings and on enquiry with the First Respondent/Landlord, the First Respondent/Landlord had stated that the property in question was given as collateral security on 15.02.2010 by means of 'Deposit of Title Deeds' for the amount borrowed by the Second Respondent. Moreover, for the fraud committed by the Second Respondent, a FIR dated 30.09.2010 was registered by the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai and charge sheet was also filed.

5. The real grievance of the Petitioner is that there are about 70 students undertaking the studies and the examinations is due to commence from 21.01.2016 to 22.02.2016 and further regular classes are conducted. Under such circumstances, on 16.12.2015, the Third Respondent/Indian Bank through the Fifth Respondent/Land Revenue Inspector, Mudakurichi Circle, Erode had locked the premises and directed to make arrangements for lifting the movable properties listed in the impugned proceedings by 31.12.2015.

6. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that in the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.96636/D2 dated 16.12.2015, it was mentioned that the possession was taken but the Petitioner was not served with any notice and also the possessory right of the Petitioner was not enquired into (which comes to an end on 04.06.2016). As such, the impugned proceedings dated 16.12.2015 of the Third Respondent/Bank are in breach of the Principles of Natural Justice.

7. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that the Petitioner is in possession of the property from 05.02.2010 prior to the mortgage dated 15.02.2010 and its tenancy has not been determined till date. Therefore, the plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned proceedings are unsustainable in the eye of Law.

8. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Rental Agreement dated 05.02.2010 between the First Respondent and the Petitioner (originally for a period of 11 months from 05.02.2010 to 04.01.2011) was extended periodically for 11 months and lastly, it was extended for 11 months on 26.07.2015 which expires on 25.06.2015.

9. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contends that the Fourth Resp