PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard Sri Aniruddha Pandey, holding brief of Sri Pramod Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 31.12.2016 and the order dated 28.9.2016 both passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Mathura, (respondent no. 3) whereby the Additional District Magistrate has directed the taking of the possession of the property situate at Plot No. 45, Jagannathpuri, Ward/Taluk Janambhumi, Tehsil and District Mathura and measuring 232.24 square meters, which is in the name of the petitioner, Smt. Kumkum Tentiwal. The other order dated 28.9.2016 pertains the directions issued for taking the possession of industrial property situate at Khasra No. 387, Khata No. 61, Kota Tehsil, District Mathura.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that he is not pressing his challenge order dated 28.9.2016 inasmuch as the possession directed in the said order dated 28.9.2016, has already been taken over, he limits the challenge in the present petition to the order dated 31.12.2016. The brief grounds for challenge are that the impugned order passed under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to ‘SARFAESI Act’) is in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice/opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to passing of the said order dated 31.12.2016. The petitioner further alleges that the application filed by the Bank before the Additional District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act did not contain the requisite particulars and, thus, the said application ought to have been dismissed. When the writ petition was filed the Court passed an order on 27.11.2018 to the following effect:

“The petitioner has come up in this petition against the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Mathura on 28.9.2016 purported to be under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002.

4. Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no. 4, wants to consider, if a writ petition would lie against the said order in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Harsh Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 1. He may also find out as to the present status of the property in question.

Put up this matter on 4.12.2018 in the additional cause list.”

5. In response thereto to the said directions, the counsel for the respondent-Bank has stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner has remedy of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the order passed under Section 14 and further prays that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, as the petitioner has not disclosed material facts that the Company of which the petitioner is a Director had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. According to the counsel for the respondents, the said fact was material fact and non-disclosure thereof would entail the dismissal of the writ petition. It was further argued that the SARFAESI Act has been amended by Act 44 of 2016 with effect from 1.9.2016 whereby Section 4-A to Section 17 has been inserted which can take care of the rights of the lessees. Section 17(4-A) of the SARFAESI Act is as under:

“(i) any person, in an application under sub-section (1), claims any tenancy or leasehold rights upon the secured asset, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts of the case and evidence produced by the parties in relation to such claims shall, for the purposes of enforcement of security interest, have the jurisdiction to examine whether lease or tenancy,--

(a) has expired or stood determined; or

(b) is contrary