JUDGMENT : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by the original petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 2403 of 2014 aggrieved by judgment dated 28.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellants. 2. Aforesaid Special Civil Application was filed with the prayers which reads as under : “14(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the orders dated 19.09.2013, 23.10.2013 and 20.01.2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate and the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 as annexed hereinabove as Annexure G and H respectively issued by the Additional District Magistrate under the delegated authority of respondent no.1 and the Additional District Magistrate giving directions to respondent No.2 to issue the aforesaid notice/order to the petitioners, on the ground that the said orders passed by the aforesaid respondents are unjust, illegal, improper and bad in law as well as are violative of the provisions and rules of the Securitization Act and SICA Act. (B) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay implementation, operation and execution of the orders dated 19.09.2013, 23.10.2013 and 20.01.2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate and the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 as annexed hereinabove as Annexure G and H respectively issued by the Additional District Magistrate under the delegated authority of respondent no.1 and the Additional District Magistrate giving directions to respondent No.2 to issue the aforesaid notice/order to the petitioners; (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and further relief’s as the facts and circumstances of the present case may require. (D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to provide for the cost of this petition.” 3. Facts, in brief, for disposal of this appeal are as under : 3.1 Appellant No.1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading in timber and manufacturing of ply wood and other appellants are surety for the credit facilities advanced to appellant no.1 – company. The appellant No.1 company has availed the following credit facilities from the respondent bank : Cash Credit (Timber Division) Rs.11,00,00,000/- Cash Credit (Plywood Division) Rs. 2,25,00,000/- Term loan Rs. The appellant No.1 company has availed the following credit facilities from the respondent bank : Cash Credit (Timber Division) Rs.11,00,00,000/- Cash Credit (Plywood Division) Rs. 2,25,00,000/- Term loan Rs. 3,50,00,000/- Inland/Foreign letter of credit (Rs.26,00,00,000/-) Working capital term loan-I* Rs.10,16,00,000/- (within ILC/ FLC limit) (reduced from Rs.11,50,00,000/-) Working capital term loan-II Rs.14,00,00,000/- (within ILC/FLC limit) Letter of credit (due to devolvement) Rs. 2,35,39,138/- *being the amount carved out from Inl/Fgn. L/C limit of Rs.26 crores. 3.2. The first appellant and other appellants have mortgaged their immovable properties as security by way of mortgage in respect of properties situated at Survey No.419/1 and 419/2 with the respondent Bank for the credit facilities granted to appellant no.1 – company. The appellant no.1 Company had also hypothecated stocks, plant and machinery as security for the credit facilities granted to the appellant no.1 company, and such assets are secured assets within the meaning of Section 2(zc) of the Seuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act, 2002”) and the respondent Bank is secured creditor within the meaning of section 2(zd) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 3.3. The appellant No.1 company committed default in repayment of credit facilities. When the default occurred, further alleging that the appellants have breached terms and conditions of sanction, loan account was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.06.2009 and the respondent bank invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing notice under section 13(2) on 16.07.2009 calling upon the appellants to pay sum of Rs.43,93,54,040.01 paise together with further interest from 01.07.2009 onwards. 3.4. The appellants have filed reply/objections to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Not satisfied with the objections, further proceedings were taken by the respondent Bank and the respondent Bank took symbolic possession of secured assets on 30.09.2009, which was published in the newspaper on 05.10.2009. The appellants have avoided to hand over physical possession of the secured assets. As stated in the application filed before the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, it is the case of the respondent bank that the appellants have failed to hand over possession stating that they would like to settle the account, as such physical possession was not taken. As stated in the application filed before the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, it is the case of the respondent bank that the appellants have failed to hand over possession stating that they would like to settle the account, as such physical possession was not taken. Further, it is stated that in stead of settling the account, the appellants have filed Securitisation Application No.63 of 2009 by invoking section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad rejected the interim relief sought by the appellants, which was confirmed by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3.5. Thereafter, the respondent Bank has filed application before the District Magistrate on 30.08.2012 under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 seeking assistance for taking possession of secured assets. In the said pending application, the Chief Manager and Authorized Officer of respondent Bank has filed affidavit sworned on 25.03.2013, affirming that the contents of the application are true to the best of his knowledge and information, as per available records. On such application filed by the respondent Bank, District Magistrate in exercise of powers under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, has passed the order on 23.10.2013 giving assistance for taking possession of secured assets. Said order was subject matter of challenge in the Special Civil Application on various grounds as stated in the petition, but the learned Single Judge has not acceded to any of the grounds raised in the petition and rejected the petition by impugned judgment dated 28.12.2017. 4. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Bharat Jani for the appellants and learned Counsel Ms. Nalini Lodha for respondent – Bank. 5. In this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants has made three fold submissions. It is contended that the application filed before the District Magistrate by the respondent Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was not in accordance with law, and there was no affidavit on the nine points as per proviso inserted by Act 1 of 2013, which came into force with effect from 15.01.2013. It is submitted that in spite of such defects, the District Magistrate not only entertained the application, but passed the impugned order. Further it is submitted that in the secured assets, tenants are in possession and without even issuing notice to the tenants, impugned order is passed. It is submitted that in spite of such defects, the District Magistrate not only entertained the application, but passed the impugned order. Further it is submitted that in the secured assets, tenants are in possession and without even issuing notice to the tenants, impugned order is passed. It is contended that when the secured assets are in possession of tenants, it is obligatory on the part of the District Magistrate to give notice to the tenants, who are in possession before passing order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that at the relevant time when the order was passed, proceedings were pending before the Appellate Authority under Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA Act”) and in view of the pendency of reference and orders passed therein, District Magistrate should have refrained from passing any order. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Lodha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Bank has submitted that the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was filed on 30.08.2012 before the District Magistrate and same was filed prior to amendment to Section 14 (Act 1 of 2013). It is submitted that in any event, the application filed by the respondent Bank discloses information as required under the SARFAESI Act and further application was also affirmed by filing affidavit which was sworned on 25.03.2013. It is further submitted that at no point of time, the appellants have taken plea of tenants stating that such tenants/third party are in possession of secured assets. It is further submitted that though for huge amount of Rs.43,93,54,040.01 paise, notice was issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to recover the said amount along with interest, but so far nothing is recovered. It is further submitted that the appellants are playing delay tactics by preventing the respondent Bank from realizing the dues by selling the secured assets. It is submitted that when proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the appellants filed Securitization Application No. 63 of 2009, in which no interim relief is granted and even against such order, though Special Civil Application is filed before this Court, no relief is granted and said order is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that by raising one or other grounds, the appellants are not allowing to take possession of secured assets so as to realize the debt. It is submitted that by raising one or other grounds, the appellants are not allowing to take possession of secured assets so as to realize the debt. It is further submitted that as reference which was pending before the appellate authority under the SICA Act is already rejected, there is no illegality in the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is contended that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge so as to interfere and grant relief to the appellants in this appeal filed by the appellants. 7. Having heard learned Counsel on both the sides, we have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and other material placed on record. 8. The 1st appellant has taken cash credit facility from the respondent bank by mortgaging properties of other appellants, but the account of the appellant no.1 company was declared as Non Performing Assets (NPA) in view of default committed by it in repayment. After such declaration, proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act and on 16.07.2009 notice was issued demanding amount of Rs.43,93,54,040.01 paise along with interest. When the respondent Bank has taken steps by issuing necessary notice under the SARFAESI Act, the appellants have filed Securitization Application No.63 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, but could not get any interim orders. Symbolic possession of the secured assets was taken by the respondent Bank and seeking assistance to get physical possession, the respondent bank has filed application before the District Magistrate on 30.08.2012. From the material placed on record, it is clear that the application of the respondent Bank was filed on 30.08.2012, much prior to insertion of 1st proviso under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (Act 1 of 2013). Act 1 of 2013 came into force with effect from 15.01.2013. In view of the fact that application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed on 30.08.2012, it can be said to be pending within the meaning of 4th proviso to section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Said 4th proviso reads as under : “provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated in the first proviso shall not apply to proceeding pending before any District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act.” 9. Said 4th proviso reads as under : “provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated in the first proviso shall not apply to proceeding pending before any District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act.” 9. In view of clear provision, we are of the view that said provision is not applicable to the application filed by the respondent bank. Even otherwise, from the material placed on record, it is clear that there was information, required to be declared under 1st proviso to section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in the application filed by the respondent bank, which is subsequently affirmed on affidavit sworned on 25.03.2013 by the Chief Manager/ Authorized Officer of respondent Bank. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in submission of learned counsel for the appellants that order passed by the District Magistrate under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not in accordance with law. 10. Secondly, it is contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that tenants are in possession of the secured assets and without issuing any notice to tenants, impugned order is passed. There is no valid documents to establish that tenants are in possession of secured assets, but in any event, it is not for the appellants to plead for the tenants. If the tenants are in possession, it is for them to avail remedy under SARFAESI Act, more particularly, remedy provided by way of amendment under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, which is inserted by Act 44 of 2016. From the reading of said proviso, it is clear that any person, claims any tenancy or leasehold rights on the secured assets, remedy is provided to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal, but at the same time, it is not open for the appellants to plead that order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by District Magistrate is illegal as tenants are not given notice. Further, learned Single Judge has considered the case law on the subject and also recorded finding that there is no valid registered lease deed nor any issue of tenancy claimed, raised or established by any third party claiming such rights. Further, learned Single Judge has considered the case law on the subject and also recorded finding that there is no valid registered lease deed nor any issue of tenancy claimed, raised or established by any third party claiming such rights. In absence of such material, learned Single Judge has held that such plea of the appellants – borrower is misconceived and we are in agreement with the said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. Having not disclosed claim of such tenants at any point of time, either at the time of mortgaging properties or in subsequent proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act, it is not open for the appellants to challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate on the ground that tenants who are in possession of the secured assets are not given any notice. It appears that appellants having defaulted huge amount towards credit facilities availed from respondent bank are playing delay tactics to delay the recovery of the amount. If such conduct of the appellants is allowed, it would defeat and frustrate the very object of the SARFAESI Act. 11. Third submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that at the relevant time there was order of the appellate authority under SICA Act in a reference made with regard to appellant no.1 company, but during the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that such reference made under SICA Act was rejected by the appellate authority. Merely, proceedings were pending before the SICA Act, is no ground which would come in the way of District Magistrate for passing the impugned order. It is to be noticed that after initiating proceedings under SARFAESI Act, symbolic possession was taken on 30.09.2009, but the appellants have avoided to part with physical possession of the properties by promising settlement of account and ultimately, they questioned the securitization proceedings by way of filing Securitization Application No.63 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. When the appellants failed to get interim relief, they approached this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court also did not grant any relief. Now, when the order is passed by the competent designated authority under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 again the appellants are trying to stall the proceeding for recovery of amount by raising one or other grounds. This Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court also did not grant any relief. Now, when the order is passed by the competent designated authority under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 again the appellants are trying to stall the proceeding for recovery of amount by raising one or other grounds. We do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant so as to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of detailed reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error so as to interfere in this appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.