been carrying on business in thepremises by obtaining therequisite statutory registrations and have beenpaying refundablesecurity deposits and monthly rents to RespondentNos.5 and6. Thecounsel further contends that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 30.08.2013 in their favour in respect of the schedule property after receiving a substantialportion of the sale consideration. Learned counsel also contend that despite receipt of the consideration, Respondent Nos.5 and 6 failed to execute the sale deed and, with an intention to defeat the Applicants' rights, created subsequent transactions in favour of thirdparties, resulting in institution of several civil proceedings, including O.S. No.76 of 2015 for specificperformance and O.S. No.41 of 2015 forpartition, wherein interim orders are stated to be operating. According to the learned counsel, the Bank has also been impleaded in the suit for speciflcperformance. The learned counsel further avers that the mortgage created in favour of the Bank is subject to their preexisting tenancy rights and equitable interest arising out of the Agreement of Sale. Learned counsel alleges that, being statutory tenants protected under the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, they cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said Act and that the Bank could not invoke theprovisions of Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act to evict them. The learned counsel further contend that the present SA is maintainable notwithstanding the dismissal of S.A. No.77 of 2021, as the present challenge arises out of the subsequent order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the Advocate Commissioner's notice, which constitute a distinct cause of action. In support of their contentions, the Applicants place reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets , Zor--.r /_r,/ <.b,4r.i"
