JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Bank praying for the following reliefs :

''(a). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the order dated 17.2.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2;

(b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 to pass fresh order on the Bank's application dated 17.2.2018 in order to hand over the actual physical possession of the mortgaged property (specifically detailed in the body of the writ petition in Para No. 4) to the Petitioner Bank within a stipulated period;''

3. By order dated 6.7.2022, this Court directed the respondent No. 1 (State of U.P. through the District Magistrate, Agra), the respondent No. 2 (The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Agra and the respondent No. 5 (Abhimanyu Singh Director, Eena Cable T.V. Network Pvt. Ltd., Agra) to file counter-affidavit. The order dated 6.7.2022 is reproduced below:

''The petitioner is the bank, whose application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act') has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.2.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that there is a temporary injunction order passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Agra in Suit No. 1258 of 2020 filed by the respondent No. 5/tenant in which the bank is not a party and since temporary injunction is operating, therefore, possession of the secured asset cannot be given.

Prima facie, it appears that neither the civil suit is maintainable nor the application of the bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act ought to have been rejected on the ground of temporary injunction obtained by the tenant, when the bank was not a party in the suit and therefore, the temporary injunction so obtained would not be operative against the bank in respect of the secured asset. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the aforesaid temporary injunction has been obtained on the basis of an alleged unregistered lease deed dated 1.8.2010 for a period of 29 years and 8 months which, prima facie, was required to be compulsorily registered in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and failure of registration would attract the consequences under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

It further appears that the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on the application of the petitioner/bank was passed by the competent authority on 26.8.2018 by the Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Agra. The respondent No. 4/owner of the secured asset filed S.A. No. 113 of 2018 in which there is not even a whisper about the tenancy of the respondent No. 5. The aforesaid S.A. was partly allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad by order dated 30.3.2019 on the ground that opportunity of hearing to the owner/borrower was not afforded by the ADM (F & R), Agra while passing the order dated 26.2.2018 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the order was quashed and it was directed that both the parties shall appear before the ADM (F & R), Agra on 30.4.2019, who shall decide the matter afresh following principles of natural justice. It appears that, thereafter, the respondent No. 5 (alleged tenant) filed a Suit No. 1258 of 2020 without impleading the bank as defendant in which an interim order was passed despite bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court created under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Now by the impugned order, on the ground of temporary injunction in the aforesaid suit, the application of the petitioner/bank has been rejected by the ADM (F & R), Agra dated 17.2.2022.

In vie