Court dismisses appeal, auction purchasers entitled to symbolic possession; tenancies legality needs separate adjudication.

The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the auction purchasers were entitled only to symbolic possession under Rule 96 of Order 21 CPC. The legality of the tenancies created by the mortgagees needed separate adjudication. The court affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain the execution application under Order 21 Rules 95 and 96 CPC, clarifying that actual physical possession could not be sought through these proceedings. The tenants were protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, preventing their ejection through execution proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to actual physical possession versus symbolic possession under Order 21 Rules 95 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Maintainability of the application under Order 21 Rules 95 and 96 CPC.
3. Whether the mortgagees (decree-holders) acted for and on behalf of judgment-debtors.
4. Whether the letting out of the property by the mortgagees was an act of prudent and good management.
5. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
6. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the execution application under Order 21 Rules 95 and 96 CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Actual Physical Possession versus Symbolic Possession:
The core issue was whether the appellants (auction purchasers) were entitled to actual physical possession of the property portions occupied by the respondents or merely symbolic possession. The court held that the auction purchasers were entitled only to symbolic possession under Rule 96 of Order 21 CPC. The tenants in occupation prior to the auction sale were not judgment-debtors, nor were they in occupation on behalf of the judgment-debtor. The validity of the tenancies created by the mortgagees could not be adjudicated in these proceedings and would have to be determined in appropriate proceedings.

2. Maintainability of the Application under Order 21 Rules 95 and 96 CPC:
The application by the auction purchasers under Order 21 Rules 95 and 96 CPC was deemed maintainable. However, the court reiterated that the auction purchasers could only seek symbolic possession as per Rule 96, not actual physical possession under Rule 95.

3. Whether the Mortgagees (Decree-Holders) Acted for and on Behalf of Judgment-Debtors:
The court held that the mortgagees had the authority to manage the property prudently, including creating leases. The leases created by the mortgagees were considered acts of prudent management under Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act, binding on the mortgagor.

4. Whether the Letting Out of the Property by the Mortgagees was an Act of Prudent and Good Management:
The court found that the letting out of the property by the mortgagees was indeed an act of prudent and good management. The leases created by the mortgagees were valid and binding, and the tenants could not be dispossessed through execution proceedings under Rule 95.

5. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act:
The court held that the tenants were protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act and could not be ejected through execution proceedings. The auction purchasers, therefore, could only obtain symbolic possession.

6. Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain the Execution Application under Order 21 Rules 95 and 96 CPC:
The court affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain the execution application under Order 21 Rules 95 and 96 CPC. However, it clarified that the auction purchasers could not seek actual physical possession through these proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining that the auction purchasers were entitled only to symbolic possession under Rule 96 of Order 21 CPC. The legality and validity of the tenancies created by the mortgagees would need to be adjudicated in separate proceedings. The findings of the single judge on the tenancies' legality would not prejudice the parties in any future proceedings. The cross-objections were also disposed of along with the appeal.

---