JUDGMENT A.A. Sayed and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. - This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 11 December 2018 passed by the DRAT dismissing the Appeal of the Petitioner thereby confirming the order dated 27 December 2017 of the DRT in the Securitisation Application No.325 of 2017 filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 22 May 2017 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and restoration of the premises in question. 2. The Petitioner who is a senior citizen and a doctor by qualification, claims to be tenant in respect of premises bearing No.168 having a built up area of about 140 square feet, on the ground floor, Fanaswadi, S.No.1/329, CTS No.2030 of Bhuleshwar Division, Fanaswadi Lane of Thakurdwar 1/8 Road, Girgaon, Mumbai 400 022 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said premises''). 3. Respondent No.2 is a Company of which Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are Directors. Respondent No.1 Bank had advanced financial facilities to the tune of Rs. 3.50 Crores to Respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the guarantors. Respondent No.7 is also the Petitioner''s landlord and owner of the building in which the said premises are situate. Pursuant to the action taken by the Respondent No.1 Bank under the SARFAESI Act, Respondent No.1 Bank has taken physical possession of the said premises on 11 August 2017 after obtaining order dated 22 May 2017 from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai (''CMM'' for short). The Petitioner thereafter filed a Securitisation Application before DRT seeking to set aside the order dated 22 May 2017 passed by the CMM and sought restoration of the said premises. The Petitioner had relied upon documents including rent receipts, letter of attornment of tenancy, etc. It appears that in the said Securitisation Application, no reply was filed by the Respondent No.1 Bank. The DRT however came to the conclusion that the Petitioner is in occupation of the said premises as a licensee and legal protection cannot be given to the Petitioner and dismissed the said Securitisation Application. The Petitioner thereafter preferred an Appeal before DRAT. Against the refusal of DRAT to take up the matter for consideration for grant of ad-interim/interim relief, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (L) No.343 of 2018. The Petitioner thereafter preferred an Appeal before DRAT. Against the refusal of DRAT to take up the matter for consideration for grant of ad-interim/interim relief, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (L) No.343 of 2018. By order dated 6 February 2018 this Court disposed of the Petition in the following terms: "3 Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, prima facie, we find that there are documents on record which support the case of the Petitioner that she is a monthly tenant of the premises much prior to the creation of the mortgage. Inasmuch as the Appeal before the DRAT is still pending and the Petitioner has already been dispossessed from the premises, we pass the following order: ORDER i) The DRAT shall hear and dispose of the Appeal of the Petitioner expeditiously and preferably by the end of June 2018; ii) Since the Respondent Bank has already taken possession of the premises in question, it shall maintain status quo in respect of the premises of which the Petitioner claims to be in possession until the Appeal is heard and decided; iii) DRAT shall decide the Appeal on its own merits without being influenced by the observations in this order." 4. The matter was thereafter heard by DRAT and by the impugned order dated 11 December 2018, the Appeal of the Petitioner came to be dismissed. While dismissing the Appeal, the DRAT held that the Securitisation Application itself was not maintainable. The DRAT further held that under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, there was no power vested in the Tribunal to set aside the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 5. We heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 Bank and learned Counsel for Respondent No.7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) REMO Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. HDB Financial Services Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4522, (High Court of Karnataka); ii) Dharmendra Kumar vs. District Magistrate, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 933, (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur); iii) B. Satyanarayanan vs. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 999 , (High Court of Madras). 6. We prima facie find from the copies of documents annexed to the Writ Petition that the Petitioner was in fact a bonafide monthly tenant of the said premises. 6. We prima facie find from the copies of documents annexed to the Writ Petition that the Petitioner was in fact a bonafide monthly tenant of the said premises. The registered Conveyance Deed dated 11 August 1998 between the previous landlords Shri Navinchandra Manilal Desai and Shri Yogeshkumar Navinchandra Desai in favour of the present landlord Respondent No.7 Shri Ghisulal Chimanji Sethia, clearly reflects the name of the Petitioner as monthly tenant. Apart from the Conveyance Deed we find that the Petitioner has annexed copies of several rent receipts which are in her name, which date back to the year 1987. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also tendered copies of electricity bills from the year 1987 which are in the name of the Petitioner. We therefore find that the Petitioner has several documents to show that she was a tenant of the said premises. Before us, the Respondent No.7 landlord and owner has filed an Affidavit stating and confirming that the Petitioner was tenant of the said premises prior to the execution of conveyance Deed dated 11 August 1998 between earlier landlords and him and continues to be tenant of the said premises. We are informed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had submitted a compilation of documents before the DRT. We find that none of the documents have been considered by DRT in respect of the claim of the tenancy of the Petitioner. The DRT erroneously concluded that the Petitioner was a mere licencee. Even the DRAT has not examined any documents of the Petitioner in respect of her claim of tenancy. We are of the view that considering the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and in particular section 17(4-A) which interalia empowers the Tribual to grant restoration of possession to an aggrieved person, the DRAT was also in error in arriving at a finding that it has no jurisdiction and that the Securitisation Application was not maintainable and the DRT has no power to set aside the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 7. We find that both DRT as well as DRAT have not at all considered the claim of the Petitioner as monthly tenant of the said premises. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order of the DRT and DRAT cannot be sustained. 7. We find that both DRT as well as DRAT have not at all considered the claim of the Petitioner as monthly tenant of the said premises. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order of the DRT and DRAT cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, we are inclined to remand the matter to DRT to examine the claim of the Petitioner of tenancy afresh after considering all the documents of the Petitioner. We grant liberty to the Petitioner to submit compilation of documents and also grant liberty to the Respondent Bank to file a Reply in the Securitisation Application. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that pending consideration of the claim of tenancy of the Petitioner by DRT, instead of granting an order of status quo and leaving the said premises in a state of non-use, it would be in the fitness of things to restore possession of the said premises to the Petitioner pending the disposal of Securitisation Application by the DRT, conditional upon a written undertaking being filed in this Court by her that she will not create 3rd party rights or induct any 3rd party in the said premises. In the circumstances, we pass the following order: i) The impugned orders dated 11 December 2018 and 27 December 2017 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to DRT to decide the Securitisation Application No.325 of 2017 afresh. Pending the Securitisation Application no coercive steps shall be taken by the Respondent Bank against the Petitioner. ii) The Petitioner is granted liberty to file compilation of documents. The Respondent Bank is also granted liberty to file Reply to Securitisation Application. The DRT shall examine the claim of tenancy of the Petitioner after appreciating the documents on record. iii) The possession of the said premises shall be handed over by the Respondent Bank to the Petitioner within 3 weeks from today conditional on her filing a written undertaking in this Court that she will not create 3rd party rights or induct any 3rd party in the said premises pending the hearing and final disposal of the Securitisation Application. iii) The possession of the said premises shall be handed over by the Respondent Bank to the Petitioner within 3 weeks from today conditional on her filing a written undertaking in this Court that she will not create 3rd party rights or induct any 3rd party in the said premises pending the hearing and final disposal of the Securitisation Application. The said written undertaking to state that in the event she does not succeed in the Securitisation Application, subject to the remedies available to her in law, she will voluntarily and without demur hand over vacant possession of the said premises back to the Respondent Bank within three weeks. It is made clear that no Application would be required to be made by the Respondent Bank for seeking police assistance or otherwise, for taking over the physical possession of the said premises in the event the Petitioner suffers any adverse order in the Securitisation Application and fails to obtain stay before the higher forum within three weeks. iv) The Securitisation Application shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 9. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.