While passing the order, the issue who occupies the premises is not gone through. Tenant can protect his rights by moving High Court against the order. As far as due process of law, the order of CMM can not be faulted.
The problem with SARFEASI act is that the CMM does not have to go through the merits of the case. He would see whether 13(2) and 13(4) notices have been issued are not. Once he is sure about its issuance he orders for eviction of the person residing in that place. In other words law of natural justice is not atall followed. The only option left for the tenant is appeal in higher forums and prove his tenancy and get relief accordingly.
I have to say yes to all your questions. As advised by Mr.Raju, any aggrieved party may approach the DRT under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Any aggrieved party includes a tenant also.
I would like to differ from the views of Mr.Khalid Masood - When a petition under section 14 is filed before a CJM or DM or CMM, he should see whether the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is served on the borrower and whether the secured property comes under his jurisdiction. If he is satisfied by both the above mentioned things he his duty bound to pass the possession order. Most of the high courts have viewed the same. Some High Courts are of the view 13(4) should proceed section 14, but the law is still not settled.