V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Ref.No.1035/2017/E3 dated 30.03.2017, quash the same and to direct the first respondent to take and handover the physical possession of the property purchased by the petitioner under the Sale Certificate issued by the second respondent dated 29.06.2016.

2. The auction purchaser is the Writ petitioner herein, who had purchased the house property situated at Coimbatore, Ganapathy Village, G.S. No. 237/A, Lakshmipuram Layout, measuring an extent of 2800 sq.ft under SARFAESI Act, 2002 from the second respondent, for sale consideration of Rs.96,00,000/- after becoming successful in the bid. Consequently, a Sale Certificate dated 29.06.2016 was issued by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner has claimed that sale has become final and he is entitled for physical possession of the property purchased by him, for the purpose of absolute enjoyment of ownership.

3. The petitioner would submit that the second respondent herein, had filed a petition dated 23.06.2016 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the same was rejected for want of some necessary particulars and documents. Therefore, the said order was challenged by the second respondent in W.P. No. 35951 of 2016 on the file of this Court, and the petition was allowed. A direction was given to the first respondent to pass orders on the petition within the statutory period.

4. It is seen that the first respondent has issued a notice of enquiry to the bank and the borrower on 20.02.2017 and it was contended by the bank that there were no tenants in the subject property, but the borrower seemed to have contended that there were tenants in all the four mortgaged properties. The borrower has also filed a petition before Debt Recovery Tribunal in S.A. No. 265 of 2016 and S.A.No.33 of 2017 to set aside the auction sale and that the same is also pending for disposal.

5. The first respondent, after enquiry, held that the mortgaged properties are in occupation of tenants and any dispute in tenancy can be settled only by Debt Recovery Tribunal as per Section 17A of the Act. The first respondent rejected the petition on the ground that, in the light of the Judgment given by the Honorable Supreme Court reported in the case of [Vishal N. Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India & Others], wherein, it is held that SARFAESI Act, 2002 cannot over ride Rent Control Act, and hence, the first respondent has ordered that physical possession of the properties mentioned above cannot be taken and hand over to the petitioner, since there are tenant in the mortgaged properties. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 30.03.2017, the petitioner has come before this Court with the present Writ Petition, contending that the orders passed by the first respondent is not in consonance with the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as the role of the first respondent under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act is only executory in nature and not adjudicatory, and the first respondent has exceeded the jurisdiction while passing the order dated 30.03.2017. Apart from that, the petitioner has also averred that merely because the property is in occupation of some tenants who have submitted their objections along with the representation to the Tahsildar, the first respondent cannot refrain himself from exercising his statutory duties under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

6. The petitioner has further contended that he is a bona-fide purchaser having invested a sum of Rs.96,00,000/- and not able to enjoy the property, even though he had purchased the same, as early as on 29.06.2016.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the materials available on record.

8. What is the questioned before this Court is, the order passed by the first respondent under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 30.03.2017.

9. It is seen from the re