respondent further states that the applicant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought for in the SA. It is also stated that when the advocate commissioner along with the authorized officer attempted to take the possession of the property the borrower had undertaken that they will pay of sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 21.10.2021 and undertake vacate the premises, if the cheque issued for that purpose got dishonoured. It is also stated that the cheque when presented for encashment had been returned dishonoured for the reason “account blocked”. The respondent had also pointed out the fact that as per the tenancy agreement the lease amount of the scheduled property was shown as Rs.10,00,000/- whereas in lease deed the lease amount is shown as Rs.17,00,000/-. A further contention is also taken that the applicants are not statutory tenants entitled for protection . It is also pointed out that the applicant relies on an unregistered tenancy for 11 months from 3.6.2018, which they claim to have a extend on 3.5.2019, 4.5.2020 and 4.5.2021 and in the absence of any expressed consent from the respondent who issued the demand notice on 15.5.2019. The applicant cannot seek protection and can only be a “tenant in sufferance”. The respondent has also reiterated the fact that the loan has been availed and security was created on 30.1.2018 and that on failure of repayment the account had been classified as NPA on 1.5.2019 and initiated the proceedings under the act. The respondent had also put forth their contention regarding legality of steps and procedure followed by them in initiating the measures and continuing the proceedings leading up to the procurement of section 14 orders. Along with counter the respondent had produced the following documents.
