and so, the lst Respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2. Thereafter, the lst Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.ol .ol.2org and possession notice dt.18.08.2022 to the borrower and 2rd Respondent and the said notices were published in two daily newspapers and the possession notice was also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the lst Respondent also issued Redemption Notice dt.31 .ol.2o2g and sent the same to the borrower and guarantor and the said notice was served on them. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property. challenging the said proceedings, the Applicant filed the present SA. The Applicant being a 3'd parU, has no right or authorit5r to contend that the 1st Respondent Bank has not issued statutory notices to the Applicant under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2o02. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.2 who is guarantor and owner of the schedule property, though contesting the matter, not chosen to file his counter and reply and hence his right of filing counter and reply was forfeited. The alleged Lease Deed dt.21.or.2012 for a period of 15 years, by virtue of which, the Applicant is claiming tenancy rights over the schedule property is an unregistered instrument and hence the same does not have any legal sanctity though it is allegedly executed before the creation of mortgage in favour of the 1st Respondent Bank .
