JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Respondent State and the Bank. In view of the order being passed herein after, this Court is not required to comment upon the merits of the case of the parties. Therefore, requirement of hearing the private Respondent is also not felt necessary. 2. Petitioner is an auction purchaser, even as per the admission of the Respondent Bank in its counter affidavit of the property comprised in JB No. 130/3092, Dag No. 13/18, 3/13, 3.7C, Ward No. 12, P.S. No. 413, Sub Plot No. 1.03(F) area 710 square feet, subject matter of SARFAESI proceedings against the mortgager, Respondent no. 5 situate at Mouza Shyamganj, Deoghar Jasidih Main Road in front of Burnwal Dharamshala, District Deoghar. Respondent Bank claims to have made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on 2.5.2011, Annexure-A invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking possession of the assets of the mortgager. On that application the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar has registered a case under the Jharkhand Building (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, Section 19 thereof and started proceedings as per the impugned notice dated 28.1.2015, Annexure-12 with which the petitioner is aggrieved. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent Bank, both submit that the initiation of the proceeding under the Act of 2011 is wholly erroneous and not maintainable. The proceedings are in respect of taking over of property under the SARFAESI Act where the District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has been empowered to take a decision on the application of the Respondent Bank/Financial Institutions to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower/mortgager. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank also submits that the property was auctioned sold on as is and where is basis. The mortgager even thereafter failed to repudiate the loan and redeem the mortgaged assets. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent State has made reference to para 22 of the counter affidavit of the Respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank also submits that the property was auctioned sold on as is and where is basis. The mortgager even thereafter failed to repudiate the loan and redeem the mortgaged assets. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent State has made reference to para 22 of the counter affidavit of the Respondent no. 3 and 4, which is quoted herein below:- "That with regard to the statement made in the paragraph 14 of the writ application, it is humbly stated and submitted that the respondent-Bank Manager, India Bank, had filed an application in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar on 28.1.2015 for assistance for delivery of possession in auction under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and a case bearing B.A. Case No. 04 of 2015 was started and a report was called for from the C.O. B.D.O. Deoghar and the O/c of Deoghar Town Police Station. After perusal of the case record by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, on 18.06.2015 it was found that the Sub-Divisional Officer is not empowered under SARFAESI Act, 2002 for delivery of possession rather the learned District Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for delivery of possession. Then the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar sent the case record of B.A. Case No. 04 of 2015 to the learned D.M.-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on 18.6.2015 for further proceedings." 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that proceedings would lie only before the District Magistrate, who is required to record satisfaction on any such application of the Bank or Financial Institutions before providing assistance for taking over of the assets of the borrower/mortgager in terms of the Section 14 of the Act of 2002. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties i.e. the petitioner and the Respondent State and Bank in the factual canvas noticed herein above, this Court is therefore not required to make any comment upon the merits of the case of the parties as observed herein above. In view of the stand taken by the Respondent State, Respondent Bank is required to pursue its application before the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar for taking steps in the matter of possession of the secured assets of the mortgager which is required to be considered in accordance with law and as per the provisions of the Act, 2002 within reasonable time. 8. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Let it be made clear that no observation made herein above shall be treated as comment upon the merits of the case.