JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for and quash the order, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, dated 20.11.2013, made in S.A.No.203 of 2013. 2. Heard Mr.V.Anand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.G.Balraj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.M.Jayaraman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. 3. It is noted that the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, had passed an order, dated 20.11.2013, in S.A.No.203 of 2013, stating that the SARFAESI Application, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court, in Sunitha Jugalkishore Gilda vs. Ramanlal Udhoji Tanna (Dead) through L.Rs and others -2013(5) CTC 99. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide tenant in the property in question and therefore, she is entitled to challenge the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, dated 30.5.2013, in Crl.M.P.No.950 of 2013, as it has been passed contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in K.Arockiyaraj vs. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 225 . However, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, had passed an order dismissing the S.A.No.203 of 2013, filed by the petitioner, stating that the petitioner does not have the right to challenge the same, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Sunitha Jugalkishore Gilda vs. Ramanlal Udhoji Tanna (Dead) through L.Rs and others, reported in 2013(5) CTC 99. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent bank had submitted that the petitioner is not a bona fide tenant. The mortgage, in respect of the property in question, had been created in the year, 2005. Thereafter, notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, had been issued against the borrower, on 21.5.2008, and a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act had been issued, on 12.1.2009. Thereafter, the property in question had been brought for sale by way of a sale notice, dated 1.12.2009. Subsequent sale notices had also been issued to bring the property in question for sale. Thereafter, the property in question had been brought for sale by way of a sale notice, dated 1.12.2009. Subsequent sale notices had also been issued to bring the property in question for sale. The petitioner is said to have entered into a tenancy agreement with the mortgagor, on 10.9.2010. The said agreement cannot be valid in the eye of the law, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in Sunitha Jugalkishore Gilda vs. Ramanlal Udhoji Tanna (Dead) through L.Rs and others, reported in 2013(5) CTC 99. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to seek the relief, as prayed for in this writ petition. As the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chenglepattu, dated 30.5.2013, made in Crl.M.P.No.950 of 2013, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, in S.A.No.203 of 2013. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, had passed an order, dated 20.11.2013,dismissing the S.A.No.203 of 2013, based on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Sunitha Jugalkishore Gilda vs. Ramanlal Udhoji Tanna (Dead) through L.Rs and others, reported in 2013(5) CTC 99, stating that the SARFAESI Application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, dated 20.11.2013, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. We are of the considered view that the petitioner ought to have challenged the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, dated 20.11.2013, made in S.A.No.203 of 2013, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, if so advised, in the manner known to law. Instead of filing an appeal against the order, dated 20.11.2013, made in S.A.No.203 of 2013, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our considered view, the present writ petition, filed before this Court, is not maintainable. Instead of filing an appeal against the order, dated 20.11.2013, made in S.A.No.203 of 2013, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our considered view, the present writ petition, filed before this Court, is not maintainable. The petitioner ought to have challenged the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, dated 20.11.2013, made in S.A.No.203 of 2013, before the appropriate forum, as per the provisions enshrined in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In such view of the matter, we find it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.