JUDGMENT : The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 3962 of 2017 is before this Court claiming tenenacy under the respondents 3, 5 and 6 in respect of two buildings; with the intention of prohibiting the 1st respondent Bank from taking possession of the properties. Admittedly, properties were mortgaged by the respondent 3, 5 and 6 for the loan availed by the respondents 3 and 4. On default being committed, proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI' for short) and notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Act against respondents 2 to 6. The Bank also approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate with an application for appointment of a Commissioner to take possession of the property. 2. The petitioner who claims to be a lessee of the respondents 3,5, and 6-the owners of the property was before the Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming protection for reason of the lease executed by respondents 3, 5 and 6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate however, declined to consider the objections and in such circumstance, the above writ petition is filed. The writ petition is posted along with O.P(DRT)73/2016 filed by the original borrower. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit raising serious objections against the claim of tenancy set up by the petitioner in the writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit indicates that the Commissioner appointed by the CJM, served Ext.P5 notice to the owner/borrower, in the address shown therein which now the petitioner in W.P(C) No.3962/2017 allege to be in his possession on lease . It is also pointed out that the original borrower in his Original Petition numbered as O.P (DRT) 73/2016 takes a contention that his father, mother, sister and the family of the petitioner are residing in the property, the physical possession of which is to be taken over. This contention is also categorically reiterated in ground G that; if possession is taken by the Bank the very shelter of the age old parents and family of the petitioner would be lost. 4. In W.P(C)No.3962/2017 the alleged tenant contends that the lease was one, existing from 2014 as is seen from Ext.P5. The lease as is seen from Ext.P5 was only for eleven months. And it is also contended that there were further lease deeds executed extending the period. In the present case, Section 13(2) notice was issued on 16.01.2016. 4. In W.P(C)No.3962/2017 the alleged tenant contends that the lease was one, existing from 2014 as is seen from Ext.P5. The lease as is seen from Ext.P5 was only for eleven months. And it is also contended that there were further lease deeds executed extending the period. In the present case, Section 13(2) notice was issued on 16.01.2016. The current lease under which the petitioner claims to be in possession and based on which protection is sought; is produced at Ext.P1 and P2 which are executed on 01.05.2016; ie: after the notice under Section 13(2). 5. In such circumstance, going by the binding precedents in 2016(3) SCC 762 (Vishal N Kalsaria v. Bank of India) and 2014 (6) SCC 1 (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd.), even on the alleged lease; the tenant cannot be allowed to continue in the premises. Further at the time of admission, an interim order dated 17.02.2016 was passed in O.P(DRT) No.73/2016 directing dispossession to be kept in abeyance on the petitioner paying Rs.1 crore within one month. The petitioner/borrower has not complied with the order. For all the above reasons the petitions filed by the borrower against the proceedings initiated and the alleged lessee against the possession attempted by the respondent Bank are dismissed.