1. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short) as well as the order dated 26.09.2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, few facts need mention, which are stated infra.

2. One Muniyappa was the owner of property bearing No. Khata No.143, Assessment No.57/2B and 58/2, Nagashettyhalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. The aforesaid Muniyappa gifted the aforesaid property by a gift deed to his daughter and Smt. Lakshmi Devi on 05.11.1999. Mr. K. Phanindranath (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent No.2' for short) obtained financial assistance to the extent of Rs.11.65 Lakhs on 19.11.2001 for purchase of the property in question. The respondent No.2 by a registered sale deed dated 24.12.2001 purchased the property in question for a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. The respondent No.2 paid a consideration of Rs.35,000/- and remaining sale consideration was paid by the bank by way of release of loan. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent No.2 sold the aforesaid property to the petitioner on 14.08.2003.

3. The respondent No.2 did not repay the loan to the Bank. Thereupon, the respondent - Bank initiated proceedings under S.13 of the Act and a notice under S.13(2) of the Act dated 31.08.2005 was issued to respondent No.5. In a proceeding under S.14 of the Act, the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate by an order dated 28.12.2005 directed that the possession be delivered to respondent No.1 with the assistance of the police. It is the case of the respondent that the possession of the property has been taken on 01.04.2006. Thereafter, an auction notice was issued on 13.05.2006 and the auction was scheduled to be held on 14.06.2006. The respondent No.3 who was the highest bidder in the aforesaid auction purchased the property in question for an amount of Rs.39,50,000/-. Thereafter, a sale certificate was issued by a bank in favour of respondent No.3 on 25.07.2006, which was registered on 31.07.2006. The respondent No.3 filed a suit seeking the relief of injunction, which was dismissed on 01.04.2014.

4. The petitioner filed an appeal under S.17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in which challenge was made to the action taken by the Bank under S.13(4) of the Act as well as a declaration was sought that the sale deed dated 25.07.2006 is invalid. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal by an order dated 26.09.2007, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the sale and he should work out the remedy available to him under the law.

5. The aforesaid order was challenged in an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal by an order dated 15.11.2016 inter alia held that respondent No.2 was a defaulter who did not pay the amount taken as a loan from the Bank and thereupon the Bank has sold the property in the proceedings under S.13 of the Act. It was further held that respondent No.3 is a bona fide purchaser. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under S.59(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881, the appellant has a right to seek the redemption and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to seek redemption, the secured asset could not have been sold. It is further submitted that the petitioner is covered under the definition of borrower as defined under S.2(f) of the Act and therefore, the notice under S.13(2) of the Act ought to have been issued to the petitioner. It is further submitted that since no notice was issued to the petitioner under S.13(2) of the Act, the entire action of the bank lea