JUDGMENT The petitioners are the tenants of the property belonging to respondents 4 to 11, whose predecessor-in-title is said to have inducted them as tenants. Since the demised premises had been mortgaged with the first respondent Bank, on default, the Bank has initiated recovery proceedings by taking recourse to the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act , 2002 (the 'Act' for brevity). The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent bank has initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Act for taking possession without adding any of the tenants as parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been inducted as tenants in the various tenements belonging to the respondents 4 to 11. He has further submitted that despite the fact that the petitioners are the tenants in legal possession of the property, the first respondent Bank has not made them parties before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, before whom the first respondent has filed an application under Section 14 of the Act for taking possession of the property. 3. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction company Limited and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 1 and also the recent judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court on 20.07.2015 in Writ Appeal No.1466/2015. 4. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, being the legally inducted tenants, are the necessary parties and in their absence the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act cannot be sustained. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent Bank has submitted that except the fifteenth petitioner, none of the other petitioners has any registered lease. According to him, in the absence of any registered lease, it is impossible for the respondent Bank to ascertain the genuineness of the petitioners’ claims that they are the tenants. 6. The learned counsel has also contended that most of the leases in favour of the petitioners are subsequent to the initiation of proceedings by the respondent Bank under Section 13 of the Act. In other words, the landlords have not put the respondent Bank on notice concerning the renewal of the alleged leases. 6. The learned counsel has also contended that most of the leases in favour of the petitioners are subsequent to the initiation of proceedings by the respondent Bank under Section 13 of the Act. In other words, the landlords have not put the respondent Bank on notice concerning the renewal of the alleged leases. At any rate, the learned counsel has, in my view fairly, submitted that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing a suitable application ventilating their grievance as regards their alleged continuation as tenants in the mortgaged property. 7. The learned counsel for the landlords, i.e. Respondents 4 to 11, submits that the petitioners are the tenants and that they have been legally inducted by the predecessor-in-title of the respondents 4 to 11. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, and the learned counsel for the respondent-landlords, apart from perusing the record. 9. Indeed, except the fifteenth petitioner, none of the petitioners has any registered lease. Nevertheless, they have been in possession of the property as can be seen from the abundant material placed by the petitioners before this Court. I hasten to add that the veracity of the material filed is not the subject matter of adjudication undertaken presently. 10. Once it is accepted that the petitioners are the tenants even under unregistered lease deeds, their possession cannot be conclude as illegal, for they could at best be the tenants holding over on the basis of month to month tenancy. Under these circumstances, it is quite essential, especially going by the definitive judicial pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra), that the tenants be put on notice while the creditor Bank initiates recovery proceedings, especially, under Section 14 of the Act for possession. 11. In fact, the learned Division Bench of this Court has very recently, following the judicial dictum in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra), directed the learned Magistrate to consider the claims of the tenants as regards taking over of possession by the creditor Bank. 12. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, I do not think there is any issue to be determined. 12. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, I do not think there is any issue to be determined. On the other hand, it suffices if it is observed that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, by filing a suitable application ventilating their grievance concerning the subsistence of their lease vis-a-vis the mortgaged property. 13. In the event the petitioners file the necessary application, it is incumbent on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to entertain the application thus to be filed and pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned before proceeding further with the determination of application under Section 14 of the Act. It is abundantly made clear that no observation made in the present disposition shall be treated as an expression of this Court's opinion on the merits of the matter. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.