JUDGMENT Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J. - Petitioner, lessee under respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is before this Court challenging Annexures-E and F notices issued under Rule 8[1] of Security Interest [Enforcement] Rules, 2002 [for short 2002 Rules]. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. C. Vijaya Kumar for petitioner and perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a lessee under respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who had obtained financial assistance from the first respondent-bank. As the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to repay the loan taken, first respondent-bank initiated recovery proceedings under 2002 Rules. Petitioner is a lessee under the lease agreement dated 19.02.2022 and has paid Rs. 20,00,000/- to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner before taking action to issue possession notice under Annexure-E. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 17[4A] of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short 2002 Act]. 5. Section 17[4A] of 2002 Act provides alternate remedy to a tenant or lessee to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for appropriate relief. When the Statute or Act provides alternate remedy, normally, this Court would not 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 the case of Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir And Others. wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considering Section 17 of the 2002 Act at paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 has 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. (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 Section 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 & Anr. (supra) as well as in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited (supra)." 6. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Khader vs. Sadath Ali Siddiqui [ILR 2022 KAR 13] considering Section 17[4A] of the 2002 Act has held that no writ would be maintainable by a tenant or lessee challenging the recovery action under 2002 Act and the remedy would be to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. At paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the said decision is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "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-section (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 Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act. 15. 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 Section 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. 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 Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act are only amenable to the appellate jurisdiction under Section 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". In view of the above, I decline to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4A) of the 2002 Act for appropriate relief.