ORDER : 1. Heard the petitioner’s counsel. Respondents 1 and 2 are served, but none appears for them. 2. The petitioner is a tenant under second respondent in respect of house premises bearing No.7, 16th Main, Near Brigade Milleneum, Puttenahalli, J.P.Nagar 7th Phase, Bengaluru. 3. The petitioner’s case is that in connection with a loan obtained by the second respondent from the first respondent, the latter made an application under Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) before the XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru as per Annexure-G for taking possession of the house in which he was residing as a tenant. The XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru allowed the said application on 27.12.2018 and permitted the first respondent to take possession of the said house. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that he was not made a party in the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and he did not know about the order passed by the said Magistrate. Abruptly, on 10.12.2019, the petitioner received a letter dated 07.12.2019 which informed him that he should vacate the house within seven days. When the petitioner and his father had been to the temple of Shabarimalai on 12 to 14th of February 2019 by leaving his ailing mother in the house, the officials of the first respondent Bank suddenly came to the house with the police support and took the possession of the house inspite of protest by his mother and locked the house. The petitioner after returning from the pilgrimage on 15.02.2019 came to know of these happenings and went to first respondent Bank and questioned about taking possession of the house, but there was no any reply from the first respondent Bank. Thereafter the petitioner had to take another house for his residence. The house where he was residing earlier has been kept under lock since 14.02.2019. The petitioner has stated that though the house is kept under lock, his belongings are there inside the house and no inventory with regard to articles kept inside the house was drawn at the time of taking over possession. The house where he was residing earlier has been kept under lock since 14.02.2019. The petitioner has stated that though the house is kept under lock, his belongings are there inside the house and no inventory with regard to articles kept inside the house was drawn at the time of taking over possession. The petitioner has kept valuable articles and medicines and the action of the first respondent in taking over possession illegally without serving any prior notice has affected his interest and therefore the order passed by the XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru on 27.12.2018 as per Annexure-J is to be quashed. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent-Bank to release all the movables of the petitioner kept inside the house. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not know about the mortgage created by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent. Therefore Section 65(A) of the Transfer of Property Act gives protection to him. Inventory should have been drawn at the time of taking over possession. Taking over possession in the absence of the petitioner was illegal and for this reason the order passed by the Magistrate is not sustainable and it needs to be quashed and direction is to be issued to the Bank for releasing of the movables. He also submits that the petitioner is an aggrieved person and he be given liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by making an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. After hearing the petitioner’s counsel what is noticeable is that when the first respondent initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner was not made a party. Even if the petitioner had been made a party, he would have been a proper party, not a necessary party. The petitioner is a tenant, and his status does not give him a right to seek quashing of Annexure-J. Perusal of Annexure-J shows that the second respondent was a borrower from the first respondent and that he committed default in repayment of the loan amount. For this reason the first respondent initiated proceedings to take possession of the mortgaged property. Nothing wrong can be found in it. For this reason the first respondent initiated proceedings to take possession of the mortgaged property. Nothing wrong can be found in it. Still if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and nothing prevents him from moving Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. If such an application is made, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may dispose of it in accordance with law. 7. It is forthcoming very much from the writ petition itself that the petitioner is not residing in the house which was mortgaged by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent. However he says that all his belongings are still inside the said house. Annexure-F dated 07.12.2019 shows that the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner stating that he has not vacated the house and that he has not shifted any of his household articles. Since according to the petitioner the house is kept under lock after taking over possession by the first respondent, the petitioner may approach the first respondent-Bank for opening the lock, so that he can shift all his articles. If the petitioner approaches the first respondent for this purpose, the first respondent shall consider his request to enable him to shift all his belongings. With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of.