JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner - a lessee under respondents 2 to 7 is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the possession notice dtd. 25/10/2019 and to declare that the bank is not entitled to initiate any action in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.138 (BBMP Khata No.218/138 of Ward No.5) of Yelahanka Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring 1 acre under the Securitization and Construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' for short). 2. Heard Sri Brijesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K V Lokesh, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Sri Siddarth B Muchandi, learned counsel for R.3 to 7. 3. Respondents 2 to 7 had obtained financial assistance from 1st respondent - bank. As respondents 2 to 7 failed to repay the loan taken from the 1st respondent, 1st respondent initiated recovery action under the SARFAESI Act. In pursuance to the recovery action, 1st respondent issued impugned possession notice dtd. 25/10/2019. 4. Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides an alternative remedy to the petitioner/lessee. Under subsec. (4A) of Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, a tenant or a lessee could approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for appropriate relief. When the Act or Statute provides for an alternate remedy, this Court would not normally entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The above view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED v/s VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 44 at paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 it is held as follows: "33. In the case of City and Industrial Development Corpn. Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168 , it was observed by this Court in paragraph 30 that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether ................... (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute." 34. In the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Ors. (supra) after referring to the earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 524 ; Surya Dev Rai Vs. (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute." 34. In the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Ors. (supra) after referring to the earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 524 ; Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675 and State Bank of India Vs. Allied Chemical Laboratories and Anr., (2006) 9 SCC 252 while upholding the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy is available under Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, it was observed that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. 35. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in subsequent decisions in the case of General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Limited and Anr. (supra) as well as in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited (supra)." 5. Division Bench of this Court in SRI ABDUL KHADER VS. SADATH ALI SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2022 KAR 13 at paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 has held as follows: "14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hemraj Ratnakar Salian vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. and has declined to grant any relief even though a claim was made that he was a tenant and therefore, is entitled for protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Therefore, on perusal of the above said sub-sec. (4A) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we would sum up the issue by relegating the appellant to work out his remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The question as to whether a lawful lease was created before the borrower pledged his properties by depositing title deeds or whether the borrower had secured the consent of secured creditor while leasing the secured asset in favour of tenant are all questions to be examined by the competent Tribunal under Sec. 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others has come down heavily on the Courts including High Courts entertaining writ petitions in respect of matters exclusively falling within the domain of SARFAESI Act. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others has come down heavily on the Courts including High Courts entertaining writ petitions in respect of matters exclusively falling within the domain of SARFAESI Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 55 has expressed its serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement, High Courts have been entertaining writ petitions ignoring the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFEASI Act. 16. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the orders under Sec. 13 of the SARFAESI Act are only amenable to the appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act is totally misconceived. The said issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra and therefore, the contention urged by the appellant that since he has no remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, he can maintain a writ petition before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, point No.1 formulated above is answered in the affirmative". 6. In view of the principles laid down in the above two decisions, I am of the view that the petitioner has to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, I decline to entertain the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.