Possession under SARFAESI Act requires observance of statutory processes, including a valid rental agreement and tenant rights.

1. Assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 08.09.2014 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.6052 of 2014, permitting the second respondent to take possession of the property in question and appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property with the assistance of the Station House Officer, R3 Ashok Nagar Police Station, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the dispute are as under:
The third respondent obtained loan for a sum of Rs.3,08,91,574/- from the second respondent and the property in question was mortgaged by the third respondent for obtaining the said loan. As the third respondent failed to make repayment, the second respondent issued a demand notice to the third respondent on 7.6.2013 under S.13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act"), calling upon him to make payment of Rs.3,32,18,047/- along with interest. In default, a notice for taking symbolic possession of the property in question was issued. Thereafter, the second respondent Bank took symbolic possession of the mortgaged property on 30.8.2013 under S.13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, the second respondent moved the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the secured assets. That petition was allowed by the impugned order dated 8.9.2014.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the occupant of a portion of the property in question. A rental agreement, dated 5.6.2010 was executed for 11 months and it was renewed periodically and continued to be in force till April, 2015. When the petitioner was not available, the property in question was illegally sealed. No notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and he was not a party in the said proceedings. Therefore, the same has to be set aside.

4. According to the second respondent, the third respondent was granted ample opportunities to make payment. After taking symbolic possession, the third respondent wanted to settle the loan through a third party and a tripartite agreement dated 3.1.2014 was executed. The third party has paid Rs.67 lakhs only as part payment to the second respondent. Thereafter no payment has been made. Therefore, steps were taken under the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the mortgaged property. After the possession was taken, a sale notice dated 27.1.2015 was issued by the second respondent. Challenging the sale notice, the third respondent has filed S.A.No.140 of 2015 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and no stay was granted. The property was also taken on sale. The successful bidder has also paid 10% reserve price and they also paid 25% of sale price. The writ petitioner has not produced any document to establish his tenancy. The alleged rental agreement dated 5.6.2010 was not registered and it was not extended further. The third respondent has set up the petitioner herein to file this writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

6. It is contended by the petitioner that he was not a party to the proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. But the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the second respondent is entitled to take possession of the property in question and assistance to secure the possession of the property was also granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that withou