In fact,the saiddemand notice was also published in Telugu and English daily newspapers and thus there is validservice of demand notice on the Applicants.Thereafter, the Respondentissued possession notice dt. 13.O9.2023 to the Applicants and the Applicants received the said notice as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondents. The said possession notice is published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication and the said notice is also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs liled by the Respondent. Thus the Respondent hasissueddemand notice and possession notice and the said notices are received by the Applicants. Along with the SA, the Applicants filed notice dt. 10. Ol.2O24 issued bythe advocate commissioner to the Applicants for directing them to vacate the schedule property and in the said notice, it is clearlymentioned that the Applicants should vacate the schedule property within 1S days from the date of the said notice. It is further clear that on 22.O1.2O24, the advocate commissioner took physical possession of the schedule propert5r. So as the physical possession of the schedule property is taken by the Respondent by invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2, the Applicants are not entitled for re-delivery of the schedule property as sought by them. So far as the Sale Notice dt.12.O2.2O24 is concerned, no auction was conducted by the Respondent in pursuance of the said sale notice and so the said sale notice becomes infructuous and accordingly, there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the said sale notice dt.12.O2.2O24. Accordingly, these pointsare answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.
