ORDER : SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. The facts involved in both writ petitions are intertwined and parties are also same and as such, both writ petitions are considered and decided by this common order. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant writ petitions are that the petitioner availed loan from the respondent bank in the form of cash credit to the credit of Rs.12,00,00,000/- and two term loans to the tune of Rs.7,50,82,000/- and 2,45,00,000/- respectively, on mortgage of petitioner's scheduled land. Owing to the default committed by the petitioner in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) on 30 June 2013, followed by possession notices dated 09 December 2013 in respect of the petitioner's shop premises and 11 December 2013 in respect of the petitioner's residential property, respectively. Assailing the possession notice dated 11 December 2013 issued in respect of his residential property, the petitioner filed a SARFAESI Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai in S.A. No.343 of 2013 and pending the said application, e-auction sale notice dated 15 September 2014 was issued, fixing the date of e-auction as 20 October 2014. Questioning the legality and validity of the said e-auction sale notice, the petitioner has filed one of the instant writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.27520 of 2014. 3. On 17 October 2014, a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank, by way of an interim order, permitted the auction to go on as scheduled on 20 October 2014, however, stayed the confirmation of auction. 4. While so, pending the aforesaid writ petition, viz., W.P. No.27520 of 2014 and the SARFAESI Application in S.A. No.343 of 2013, on 21 March 2014, the respondent bank filed a petition before the District Magistrate/District Collector, Kancheepuram, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, for taking possession of the secured asset. The said authority, on 05 August 2014, directed the Tahsildar, Sozhinganallur, Kanchipuram District, to enquire into the ownership of the property in question and submit to him a detailed report. 5. The said authority, on 05 August 2014, directed the Tahsildar, Sozhinganallur, Kanchipuram District, to enquire into the ownership of the property in question and submit to him a detailed report. 5. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner alleges that on 07 October 2015, the respondent bank and the fourth respondent/auction purchaser, on the strength of the order of the District Magistrate/District Collector, entered into the petitioner's residential property, which was let out on lease to five shops, with police and henchmen and threatened the petitioner's tenants to vacate the premises. Thus, the writ petition in W.P. No.32716 of 2015, seeking a declaration that the action taken by respondents 1 to 4 in taking possession of the petitioner's shop premises on 07 October 2015 is illegal, when the creation of security interest is under challenge in W.P. No.27520 of 2014. 6. In W.P.No.27520 of 2014, the challenge is to the e-auction sale notice on the ground that “security interest” was not created properly, as defined under clause (zf) of Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act for want of proper “security agreement”, as defined under clause (zb) of Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act. 7. Rev. Dr. S.N. Amarnath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the security interest is enforceable, which is to be created in terms of Section 2(zf) of the SARFAESI Act. He further contends that there was no security agreement, as required, for creating the security interest. As in the absence of the agreement between the parties, there is no assignment as understood in the common parlance. Mere deposit of title deeds with an intention to create mortgage does not satisfy the requirement of execution of security agreement. 8. The learned counsel further submits that the agreement is required to be signed by both parties. In the case on hand, there is mere acceptance of deposit of title deeds by bank authorities without there being a legal security agreement. 9. The next contention of Dr. S.N. Amarnath is that under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower becomes liable to secured creditor under a security agreement to make any repayment of secured debt. In the case on hand, there is mere acceptance of deposit of title deeds by bank authorities without there being a legal security agreement. 9. The next contention of Dr. S.N. Amarnath is that under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower becomes liable to secured creditor under a security agreement to make any repayment of secured debt. In the case on hand, since there was no security agreement as defined under Section 2(zb) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner, being the borrower, is not liable to make repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof. Thus, the demand notice issued under the provision of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and further consequential actions are non-est and deserve to be quashed. 10. In regard to the confirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser impleaded subsequently, by order dated 10th September, 2015, as respondent No.3 in W.P.No.27520 of 2014, it is submitted that on 17th October 2014, a Division Bench of this Court, by way of an interim order, permitted the auction sale to be held on 28th October, 2014, to go on, however, stayed the confirmation of the auction. Thereafter, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 8th January, 2015. Thereafter, the auction was confirmed. The authorities knew the fact of dismissal of the petition on account of non prosecution. Thus, proceeding with the confirmation of the auction was unjust, illegal and deserves to be quashed. 11. Per contra, Shri AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent Bank in W.P.No.27520 of 2014, would contend that the “security agreement” as defined under Section 2(zb) of the SARFAESI Act provides that an agreement, instrument or any other document or arrangement under which security interest is created in favour of the bank, i.e., secured creditor including the creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds with the secured creditor. It is further contended that under the definition of secured interest, as aforestated, the security interest is created in favour of the secured creditor on mortgage of title deeds and assignment thereon. Thus, Section 13(2) notice was rightly issued to enforce the security interest for recovery of the outstanding debt amount. The sale was confirmed after the dismissal of the writ petition. The e-auction sale notice was issued during the pendency of the application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Thus, Section 13(2) notice was rightly issued to enforce the security interest for recovery of the outstanding debt amount. The sale was confirmed after the dismissal of the writ petition. The e-auction sale notice was issued during the pendency of the application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have raised the said issue in the pending application before the Tribunal. 12. Ms.AL.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser would submit that the auction sale was in accordance with the legal provisions, procedure and the same was confirmed for consideration during the time when there was no stay in operation in any of the pending petition. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 14. To appreciate the contentions, it is apt to extract the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Clause (zb) of Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under : “(zb) “security agreement” means an agreement, instrument or any other document or arrangement under which security interest is created in favour of the secured creditor including the creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds with the secured creditor.” Clause (zf) of Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under : “(zf) “security interest” means right, title and interest of any kind whatsoever upon property, created in favour of any secured creditor and includes any mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment other than those specified in section 31.” Section 13(1) and 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act reads as under : “13. Enforcement of security interest. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the Court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Enforcement of security interest. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the Court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4).” 15. Regard being had to the object of the enactment, i.e., the SARFAESI Act, the security agreement is defined under clause (zb) of Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act. It is well settled principle of interpretation of law that while interpreting the provision, the whole enactment has to be read and understood. The definition of “security agreement” is unambiguous. It is defined as an agreement, instrument or any other document or arrangement under which security interest is created in favour of the secured creditor, which includes the creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds with the secured creditor. 16. In the case on hand, the title deeds were deposited under Form No.D17D by the guarantor with an intent to create security in favour of the bank, as contemplated in Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on 10th December, 2009. The said title deeds were accepted by the officers of the Bank in Form No.D17E, dated 10th December, 2009, whereunder it was clearly stated that the title deeds were mortgaged with an intent to create security in respect of the said properties comprising of all lands and buildings, structures, erections, fixture and fittings thereon. 17. The security interest is defined, as the right, title and interest of any kind whatsoever upon the property created in favour of any secured creditor and includes any mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment other than those specified in Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act. 17. The security interest is defined, as the right, title and interest of any kind whatsoever upon the property created in favour of any secured creditor and includes any mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment other than those specified in Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act. In the case on hand, proper mortgage and assignment was made. Thus, the security interest was created in accordance with the requirement of the definition of “security interest”. Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act deals with the non application of the provisions of the Act to certain cases, with which we are not concerned. 18. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Narvir Singh and another, (2014) 1 SCC 105 , the Supreme Court, while examining the question as to whether mortgage by deposit of title deeds is required to be done by an instrument at all, observed that “In our opinion, it may be effected in a specified town by the debtor delivering to his creditor documents of title to immovable property with the intent to create a security thereon. No instrument is required to be drawn for this purpose.” 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the stay of the confirmation of sale would not come to an end unless the same is specifically vacated by the Court is noted to be rejected. The stay order remains in operation during the pendency of the petition. Once the petition, whereunder interim stay was granted, is dismissed, no interim order survives. The dismissal may be on any ground, whether for want of prosecution or on merit. 20. A reference to the case of A.V. Sreenivasalu Naidu Vs. V.K. Nataraja Goundan and another, AIR 1955 Madras 461, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. The said matter dealt with the disposal of the case in execution applications filed under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The confirmation of sale cannot be held as illegal, as the confirmation was made after dismissal of the writ petition on 8th January, 2015. Having held that the security interest was properly created, the subsequent measures taken by the secured creditor Bank by issuance of demand notice and thereafter possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, are in accordance with law and cannot be faulted with. We are informed that the dispute is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Having held that the security interest was properly created, the subsequent measures taken by the secured creditor Bank by issuance of demand notice and thereafter possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, are in accordance with law and cannot be faulted with. We are informed that the dispute is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all grounds available under the provisions of law in the pending dispute, if so advised. 21. For the reasons mentioned herein above, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and are accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.