JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank to take physical possession of a shop room in which the petitioner is conducting a barber shop. The shop room in question is situated on property belonging to the 3 rd respondent, who is indebted to the respondent Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be evicted by resort to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and if at all he has to be evicted, proceedings will have to be initiated under the Rent Control Law. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3 rd respondent had purchased the building at a time when the father of the petitioner was a tenant in the building. It is submitted that this fact is even mentioned in the document of title of the 3 rd respondent. It is submitted that the Bank was thus aware of the fact that there were tenants and having undertaken the risk of accepting the mortgage of a building / property with tenants, the Bank cannot be heard to contend that they can evict persons in occupation without having to resort to proceedings under the Rent Control Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal [ 1979 (4) SCC 214 ] in support of the contention that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act will not apply to a tenant who is protected in terms of the provisions contained in the State Rent Control Act. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India and Others [ 2016 (3) SCC 762 ] in support of the contention that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act will not override the provisions of the Rent Control Law. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that the petitioner is clearly not entitled to any protection from eviction, on admitted facts. It is submitted that the issue raised in the writ petition stands covered against the petitioner by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Asset Reconstruction Co. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that the petitioner is clearly not entitled to any protection from eviction, on admitted facts. It is submitted that the issue raised in the writ petition stands covered against the petitioner by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Others [ 2014 (6) SCC 1 ]; Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Another [ 2019 (9) SCC 94 ] and Hemraj Ratnakar Salian v. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Others [2021 KHC 6374]. It is submitted that this Court referred to the judgments in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra), Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra), Hemraj Ratnakar Salian (supra) in the judgment in Canara Bank v. Sachin Shyam [ 2023 (1) KHC 503 ] where this Court had interfered with the proceedings of a learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, where the learned Magistrate had taken the view that granting an order for taking possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act would affect the rights of a tenant. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank also placed reliance on th recent judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 177) to contend that the respondent Bank is purely a private entity and does not answer the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, no writ petition is maintainable in the matter. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, I am of the view that the point raised in the writ petition is squarely covered against the petitioner by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra), Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra) and Hemraj Ratnakar Salian(supra). In Hemraj Ratnakar Salian (supra), the Supreme Court after considering the earlier judgments in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) and that of the Three - Judge Bench in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra) held as follows:- “10. Procedural mechanism for taking possession of the Secured Asset is provided under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act. S.17 of the SARFAESI Act provides for the right of appeal to any person including the borrower to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Procedural mechanism for taking possession of the Secured Asset is provided under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act. S.17 of the SARFAESI Act provides for the right of appeal to any person including the borrower to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). S.17 has been amended by Act No. 44 of 2016 providing for challenging the measures to recover secured debts (for short, “the Amendment”). Under the Amendment, possession can be restored to the borrower or such other aggrieved person. This Amendment has come into force w.e.f. 1 st September, 2016. This Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Others , 2014 (6) SCC 1 has held that right of appeal is available to the tenant claiming under the borrower. In Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra , 2011 (2) SCC 782 , this Court has held that DRT can not only set aside the action of the secured creditor but even restore the status quo ante. Therefore, an alternative remedy was available to the appellant to challenge the impugned order under S.17 of the SARFAESI Act even before the amendment to S.17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, given that the instant appeal has been pending consideration before this Court from the year 2016, we propose to examine the case on merits without directing the appellant to avail the alternative remedy. 11. In Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) this Court has categorically held that if the tenancy claim is for any term exceeding one year, the tenancy can be made only by a registered instrument. It was held thus : “36. We may now consider the contention of the respondents that some of the appellants have not produced any document to prove that they are bona fide lessees of the secured assets. We find that in the cases before us, the appellants have relied on the written instruments or rent receipts issued by the landlord to the tenant. S.107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made "only by a registered instrument" and all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Hence, if any of the appellants claim that they are entitled to possession of a secured asset for any term exceeding one year from the date of the lease made in his favour, he has to produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour by the lessor. Where he does not produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour and instead relies on an unregistered instrument or oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will have to come to the conclusion that he is not entitled to the possession of the secured asset for more than a year from the date of the instrument or from the date of delivery of possession in his favour by the landlord." 12. A Three - Judge Bench of this Court in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Another , 2019 (9) SCC 94 , after considering almost all decisions of this Court, in relation to the right of a tenant in possession of the secured asset, has held that if a valid tenancy under law is in existence even prior to the creation of the mortgage, such tenant's possession cannot be disturbed by the secured creditor by taking possession of the property. If a tenancy under law comes into existence after the creation of a mortgage but prior to issuance of a notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy the conditions of S.65 - A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. If a tenant claims that he is entitled to possession of a Secured Asset for a term of more than a year, it has to be supported by the execution of a registered instrument. In the said decision of this Court, it was clarified that in the absence of a registered instrument, if the tenant only relies upon an unregistered instrument or an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the tenant is not entitled to possession of the secured asset for more than the period prescribed under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. It was held thus: “24.1. If a valid tenancy under law is in existence even prior to the creation of the mortgage, the tenant's possession cannot be disturbed by the secured creditor by taking possession of the property. It was held thus: “24.1. If a valid tenancy under law is in existence even prior to the creation of the mortgage, the tenant's possession cannot be disturbed by the secured creditor by taking possession of the property. The lease has to be determined in accordance with S.111 of the TP Act for determination of leases. As the existence of a prior existing lease inevitably affects the risk undertaken by the bank while providing the loan, it is expected of banks / creditors to have conducted a standard due diligence in this regard. Where the bank has proceeded to accept such a property as mortgage, it will be presumed that it has consented to the risk that comes as a consequence of the existing tenancy. In such a situation, the rights of a rightful tenant cannot be compromised under the SARFAESI Act proceedings. 24.2. If a tenancy under law comes into existence after the creation of a mortgage, but prior to the issuance of notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy the conditions of S.65 - A of the TP Act. 24.3. In any case, if any of the tenants claim that he is entitled to possession of a secured asset for a term of more than a year, it has to be supported by the execution of a registered instrument. In the absence of a registered instrument, if the tenant relies on an unregistered instrument or an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the tenant is not entitled to possession of the secured asset for more than the period prescribed under S.107 of the TP Act." 13. It was further held that the Rent Act would not come to the aid of a “tenant - in – sufferance” vis - a - vis SARFAESI Act due to the operation of S.13(2) read with S.13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. It was held as follows: “35. The operation of the Rent Act cannot be extended to a “tenant - in – sufferance” vis - a - vis the SARFAESI Act, due to the operation of S.13(2) read with S.13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. A contrary interpretation would violate the intention of the legislature to provide for S.13(13), which has a valuable role in making the SARFAESI Act a self - executory instrument for debts recovery. A contrary interpretation would violate the intention of the legislature to provide for S.13(13), which has a valuable role in making the SARFAESI Act a self - executory instrument for debts recovery. Moreover, such an interpretation would also violate the mandate of S.35, SARFAESI Act which is couched in broad terms.” 5. All the contentions taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are covered against him by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hemraj Ratnakar Salian (supra). The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishal N. Kalsaria (supra) is a judgment of a two Judge Bench rendered on 20.01.2016. In the light of the later judgments of the three Judge Bench in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra), the law laid down in Vishal N. Kalsaria (supra) is no longer good law. 6. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.