JUDGMENT :

Yashwant Varma, J.

Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel in support of the petition, Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel has appeared for the Canara Bank while Sri Kartikeya Saran addressed submissions on behalf of the eighth respondent (the "auction purchaser"). The third and fourth respondents (the "original borrowers") although duly served as evidenced from the Affidavit of Service filed in these proceedings have not appeared. Learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

2. The petitioners claim to be tenants "holding over" pursuant to a lease deed executed by the original borrowers on 4 April 2012. They assail the order dated 21 February 2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in proceedings instituted by Canara Bank (Bank) referable to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (2002 Act). Challenge is also laid to the order dated 3 May 2019 as passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) upholding the decision rendered by the DRT. The challenge before the Tribunal was to the initiation of action under Section 13 of the 2002 Act by the Bank. The petitioners assert that since they were tenants holding over under a valid lease executed in their favour by the original borrowers, in the absence of a valid termination of that tenancy the Bank could not divest them of possession. Both the D.R.T. as well as the D.R.A.T. have negatived the objections raised holding that the lease did not fulfill the conditions imposed by Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (1882 Act) and consequently the petitioners were not entitled to retain possession of the premises in question. Before proceeding to notice the rival submissions advanced, it would be appropriate to set out the following essential facts.

3. The original borrowers were extended various credit facilities by the Bank. In order to secure repayment of the loans and credit facilities so sanctioned, they created an equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank insofar as the premises in question are concerned on 24 March 2004. On 4 April 2012, the original borrowers are stated to have executed a "Rent Agreement" in favour of the petitioners. The premises in question [which shall hereinafter and for the sake of brevity be referred to as the "secured asset"] was let out to the petitioners at a yearly rate of 24,00,000/- and on a monthly rent of Rs.2,00,000/-. Admittedly, the Rent Agreement is an unregistered instrument. The tenure of the lease was set out in Clause 1, which reads thus:

"NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:

1. In pursuance of the said agreement and in consideration of rent hereby granted and the lessee's covenants hereinafter mentioned, the Lessor hereby demise unto the lessee the demise premises, to hold the demise premises unto the lessee for a period of 3 years commencing from the 4th day of April, 2012, at a yearly rent of 24 lakhs for which it is due, the first of such yearly rent shall be paid on every 1st week of the month in installment out of 12 equal installment which is Rs. 2 lakh. And the subsequent rent shall be paid on in the above described manner of every succeeding year regularly."

4. Clause 7 of the Rent Agreement has an important bearing on the questions which have been raised for the consideration of the Court and therefore is extracted herein below:

"7. That this rent agreement is valid for 3 years but the Lessee or their assigned shall have the right to continue the possession of the demise property until, the cancellation of rent agreement or unless the Lessee shall pay the all costs & expenses of the construction or renovation of the structure of the property which made by the Lessee on depreciated value of the cost of construction."

5. The Rent Agreement recites that the premises had been established by the original borrowers for the purposes of processing and treatment of raw hides and tanned leather. The Rent Agreement conferred a right on the petitioners here to use the property as well as