JUDGMENT : 1. The present order shall govern all the aforesaid company applications preferred by Maharaja Kishangarh Somyag Mills Co. (Trans.) Ltd., Kishangarh (hereinafter referred as the ‘old company’). 2. For disposal of the aforesaid company applications the brief facts, which are not disputed, need to be mentioned relating to the Company Petition No.3/1956 wherein the present company applications have been moved. 3. An agreement dated 20/01/1943 was executed for lease of plant & machines and land & building of the old company in favour of Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred as the ‘company in liquidation’). The company in liquidation was ordered to be wound up in the Company Petition No.3/1956 vide order dated 11/04/1958 at behest of one Standard General Insurance Company Limited, one of the creditors. The Official Liquidator (hereinafter referred as ‘OL’), in pursuance of the winding up order, took possession and charge of the properties of the company in liquidation under Section 456 of the Companies Act, 1956 in 1958. The old company submitted claim for possession before the OL relating to lease of land and building which was rejected by the OL on 11/01/1960. The appeal preferred under Rule 164 against order of the OL came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 04/07/1960 to certain extent. The old company as well as one Central Bank of India, creditor of the company in liquidation preferred cross-objections in DB Civil Special Appeal which was dismissed on 16/01/1964. The OL was transposed as an appellant in the said appeal and liberty was granted to the OL to file claim before the Company Court as against the construction made by the lessor company on the property in question. The old company preferred a Company Petition No.7/1972 before this Court wherein an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC 1908 was filed by the old company seeking amendment in the said Company Petition No.7/1972. The High Court vide order dated 21/12/1979 held that the Execution Petition No.7/1972 as well as the amendment sought were erroneously moved and it was directed as under:- “As no execution petition lies under the law this may be treated as an application before the Court praying for seeking direction for enforcement of the order dated 4/7/1960. The High Court vide order dated 21/12/1979 held that the Execution Petition No.7/1972 as well as the amendment sought were erroneously moved and it was directed as under:- “As no execution petition lies under the law this may be treated as an application before the Court praying for seeking direction for enforcement of the order dated 4/7/1960. The prayers which the petitioner wants to get incorporated in the execution petition may be considered to be a part and parcel of this application. The petitioner is directed to present an amended petition with a copy to the Official Liquidator. The petitioner is directed to present an amended petition with a copy to the official Liquidator. The petitioner may do so on 4/1/1980. The Official Liquidator is directed to file his reply before 18/1/1980, if he so chooses and the case be listed for final disposal on 18/1/1980.” 4. Treating the same as an application for seeking directions, the matter was further processed. In the meanwhile, the OL vide auction 26/10/1980 auctioned the movables in favour of Mr. Satya Narain Modani & Party and the same was confirmed on 14/08/1981 for an amount of approximately Rs. Seven Lac. The Company Application No.48/1981 was filed wherein directions were issued on 26/10/1981 to the OL to go to the site and deliver the auctioned property which was a list of movables as approved to the auction purchaser and report to the Court. However, it was reported by the OL that the auction purchaser had created law and order situation and therefore, the Company Court directed the OL on 18/01/1981 to seek police protection and carry out the earlier directions. On 15/10/1982, the said Petition No.7/1972 alongwith other various applications were decided by the Company Court by three separate orders. In the Company Misc. Case No.7/1972, it was directed as under:- “It is accordingly ordered that the Official Liquidator shall pay Rs.2,35,997.57 as the amount of Items No. 1,2, 4 and 5. He shall also hand over the possession of the immovable properties mentioned in Schedule B. The old Company is not entitled to any damages or interest on the amount which was lying in deposit with the Official Liquidator.” 5. In Company Application No.9/1979, it was ordered as under:- “By a separate order in Company Petition No.7 of 1972, Maharaja Kishangarh Somyog Mills Ltd. Vs. In Company Application No.9/1979, it was ordered as under:- “By a separate order in Company Petition No.7 of 1972, Maharaja Kishangarh Somyog Mills Ltd. Vs. O.L. Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd. the old Company has been found entitled to the properties mentioned in Schedule ‘B’. In the face of these findings, the contention of the Official Liquidator cannot be sustained. The Official Liquidator is therefore, directed to pay to the old Company the rents collected by him on account of leasing out the godowns and garages. He shall of course, be entitled to deduct the administrative charges which he has spent in looking after these properties. A detailed order does not seem necessary in view of the order passed in Company Petition No.7 of 1972, Maharaja Kishagarh Somyog Mills Vs. Official Liquidator, Maharaja Kishangarh Mills.” 6. Against the said orders, as above, four appeals were preferred, two by the OL and 2 by the old company. All the four DB Special Appeals were decided vide order dated 03/11/1995 and by a common order dated 03/11/1995, DB Special Appeal No.7/1983 filed by the OL was dismissed and the DB Special Appeal No.8/1983 filed by the OL came to be disposed of by Division Bench finally resolving the controversy in the following manner:- “(1) The possession of building known as “Patni Bhawan” in Schedule ‘B’ and described as item No.2 along with the first floor thereon, shall be delivered by the Liquidator to the Old Company. (2) Possession of item No.3, the boiler room and item No.4, the spinning room, shall also be delivered to the Old Company. (3) Item Nos. 5, 6 and 13 to 16 are temporary structures of tin sheds. The Liquidator may get them removed at his own cost within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which his right to remove them and/or get any compensation therefor, shall stand defeated in favour of the Old Company. (4) Item Nos. 7 and 8 are though pucca constructions, yet since they may be removed without causing damage to Old Company’s property and the Old Company has expressed its readiness to their removal, the Liquidator may get them removed. (4) Item Nos. 7 and 8 are though pucca constructions, yet since they may be removed without causing damage to Old Company’s property and the Old Company has expressed its readiness to their removal, the Liquidator may get them removed. (5) Two small kotharies at item No.9, two pucca ponds to be filled with water (item No.12), the dispensary room building, one room attached to the office building of the Old Company, one room near main gate, shall not be removed. The movables belonging to the New Company and which are not embedded in earth or walls may be removed without causing damage to the properties of the Old Company. (6) Items not covered by the above order shall not be removed. (7) Items held removable by the Liquidator shall be so removed and possession of the land under them shall be delivered within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which they shall vest in the Old Company. This Appeal stands disposed of as partly allowed in the manner stated above.” 7. Consequently, both the appeals bearing No.9/1983 and 31/1985 of the Old Company were also dismissed. The SLP was preferred before the Supreme Court by the OL which was also dismissed vide order dated 23/02/1996. 8. Thus, final adjudication was made in terms of the Division Bench order upholding right of the Old Company to the possession of the building known as ‘Patni Bhawan’, boiler room, spinning room, land and property of the Old Company which it had leased out in favour of the company in liquidation. The movables belonging to the new company were allowed to be removed which was not embedded in earth or walls and it was also directed that the possession of the land shall be delivered to the Old Company within a period of two months otherwise it would vest in the Old Company. Thus, in terms of the order, the entire property now vests in the Old Company. 9. It appears that another litigation came to be initiated by moving of a company application No.54/2005 by the OL, whereby report of one Advocate Mr. VL Mathur was placed on record in terms of some order passed by the Company Court dated 07/04/2004 on an application for implementation of the order dated 03/11/1995. 9. It appears that another litigation came to be initiated by moving of a company application No.54/2005 by the OL, whereby report of one Advocate Mr. VL Mathur was placed on record in terms of some order passed by the Company Court dated 07/04/2004 on an application for implementation of the order dated 03/11/1995. It was stated that the auction purchaser had put locks on the company liquidation property’s gate which was sought to be opened. This Court vide order dated 25/11/2010 directed the OL to take steps for making payment of rent received to the Old Company and to withdraw its security guards. 10. In the meanwhile, in purported compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench upheld by the Supreme Court, the OL handed over symbolic possession to the Old Company vide order dated 24/02/1998 which was taken over without prejudicing the legal rights of the Old Company by the authorized director of the Old Company. 11. In terms of the order dated 25/11/2010 rent was paid to the Old Company on 31/12/2010 and vide possession memo dated 11/01/2011 the immovable properties were handed over to the authorized director in vacant condition which was 20 in number. Thereafter, on a Company Application No.23/2011 filed by the OL, order was passed on 12/05/2011 allowing the OL to file restoration application for restoring the Execution Application No.7/1997 dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarh on 24/07/2008 and further directed as under:- “At the same time, this Court would further like to observe that out of the total sum lying in FDR amount of the Company in liquidation of which reference has been made in Para No.6 of this application, a sum of Rs.27 Lacs be paid to Mr. S.N. Garg, Director of the Company by account payee cheque within one week from today which will be subject to final outcome of the pending claim.” 12. Thereafter, in Company Application No.54/2005, a Company Application No.24/2011 was filed by the Old Company seeking permission of the Court to initiate legal action for evicting the alleged trespassers and tenants who are in occupation of the property in dispute and taking other suitable action permissible under law. A prayer was made on behalf of the Old Company to direct the OL to take steps against the alleged trespassers and tenants. A prayer was made on behalf of the Old Company to direct the OL to take steps against the alleged trespassers and tenants. The OL in turn requested the Court to allow the Old Company to take such steps and assured for full cooperation. In the circumstances, the Court passed following order on 28/07/2011:- “After going through the company application and taking note of the submissions made, this Court considers it appropriate to grant permission to Mr. Mehta to take appropriate action against the alleged trespassers and tenants as permissible under law and Official Liquidator will also cooperate in the matter.” 13. By an administrative order, the Company Judge heard the application preferred by the OL wherein it prayed to direct Shri S.N. Garg, Director of M/s Maharaja Kishangarh Somyag Mills Company (Trans) Limited (Old Company) to engage Advocate to issue notice on behalf of the OL under their signatures, upon which the following order was passed on 05/08/2011:- “O.L. may cooperate in taking legal action as referred in para (ii).” 14. In the aforesaid background, the present company applications are again before this Court preferred by the Old Company for evicting the concerned trespassers or so-called tenants who had been brought over by the OL after taking possession of the properties on 23/05/1958. It is case of the applicants in the present company applications that the said property was under custodia legis as on 23/05/1958 with the OL and once the OL is directed to handover the properties back to the Old Company in terms of directions issued on 03/11/1995 by the Division Bench, any tenancy which may have arisen during the period, inter-alia, came to an end and therefore, all the persons, who are in possession of the properties which now vests with the Old Company, are not entitled to hold possession thereof and are liable to be evicted. 15. It is submitted further that notice in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 28/07/2011 read with order dated 05/08/2011, was served on the respondent and the respondent has failed to handover the premises and has refused to vacate. 15. It is submitted further that notice in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 28/07/2011 read with order dated 05/08/2011, was served on the respondent and the respondent has failed to handover the premises and has refused to vacate. It is further stated that the respondents in each of the applications herein above, who are pointed out to be in possession of the Old Company’s properties, are nothing but trespassers and as due notice has already been served upon them and they have been asked by this Court to put up their stand, due procedure of law has been now followed which is required for removal/eviction of a trespasser and nothing further is required to be done in the matter and the properties as marked and placed in the schedule and map before this Court may be handed over to them. It is further prayed that the litigation which has been pending before this Court ought to be given quietus now and the fruits of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court way back as on 03/11/1995 and upheld by the Supreme Court ought to be delivered to them. It is submitted that the Old Company has been claiming for its rights under this litigation since 1958 and only part of the possession has been handed over to it by the OL. It is submitted that on account of the action of the OL in allowing tenants to handover the property and allowing trespassers to enter into properties, a situation has arisen as on today. It is submitted that as the Old Company has been allowed to step up into shoes of the OL, the present company applications, moved under Sections 446 & 447 of the Companies Act, 1956 for seeking physical and vacant possession, are maintainable. 16. Learned counsel for the OL admitted the claim made in the applications filed by the Old Company and has submitted the details of the properties and also mentioned in the chart the day from which the demised property was rented out. The documents relating to the said properties as per record being maintained by the OL and the Registers and Ledger Books of the property were placed for perusal of this Court in original. 17. The documents relating to the said properties as per record being maintained by the OL and the Registers and Ledger Books of the property were placed for perusal of this Court in original. 17. Learned counsel for the Old Company in Company Applications No. 43, 49, 50 & 51 of 2013 pointed out that the properties in questions have been rented out while the properties as mentioned in the other company applications are being held by trespassers. The details are as under:- “1. 39/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-1 Kelu Tin shed. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the same was tenanted to Shri Kishanchandra Sharma Master, Madanganj on 21.08.1960 at the initial rent of Rs. 4/-month. 2. 37/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-16-B. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the same was tenanted to Shri Bhagwan Textiles on 01.01.1972 at the initial rent of Rs. 35/- per month. 3. 38/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-16-A. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the same was tenanted to Shri Bhagwan Power loom & Textiles on 01.01.1972 at the initial rent of Rs. 80/- per month. 4. 40/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-26. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the same was tenanted to Shri Banshilal Rathi on 14.03.1989 at the initial rent of Rs. 600/- per month. 5. 41/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-14. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Bhagwan Power Loom Factory on 22.12.1972 at the rent of Rs. 75/- per month. If the Godown is wrongly mentioned and is actually TB-24, the said Godown was tenanted to the Aditya Mills Ltd. on 01.01.1971 at the rent of Rs. 140/- per month. 6. 42/2013 Tenant Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-18. 75/- per month. If the Godown is wrongly mentioned and is actually TB-24, the said Godown was tenanted to the Aditya Mills Ltd. on 01.01.1971 at the rent of Rs. 140/- per month. 6. 42/2013 Tenant Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-18. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shanti Kumar Pukhraj Jamad, General Merchants Commission Agents, Madanganj on 01.01.1982 at the initial rent of Rs. 110/- per month. 7. 43/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-13. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Bhagwan Powerloom Factory on 04.03.1968 at the initial rent of Rs. 55/- per month. 8. 44/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-22/2. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Govind Singh Jamad on 21.03.1989 at the initial rent of Rs. 401/- per month. 9. 45/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-29. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the same was tenanted to Aditya Mills Ltd. on 30.06.1973 at the initial rent of Rs. 75/- per month. 10. 46/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-9 or ½ portion of Dying Printing area. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Manohar Lal Baheti at the rent of Rs. 66/-per month. 11. 47/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-22/TB 1. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Ganpat Singh Jamad on 21.03.1979 at the initial rent of Rs. 261/- per month. 12. 48/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-44/TB-47A. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to One-Shanti Lal Modi C/o Shri Tarachand Amarchand Modi, Commission Agents, Madanganj on 10.09.1975 at the rent of Rs. 720/- per month. 261/- per month. 12. 48/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-44/TB-47A. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to One-Shanti Lal Modi C/o Shri Tarachand Amarchand Modi, Commission Agents, Madanganj on 10.09.1975 at the rent of Rs. 720/- per month. If the Godown is wrongly mentioned and is actually TB-40, the said Godown was tenanted to the Shri Shanti Lal Tarachand Jain on 13.01.1972 at the rent of Rs. 13/- per month. 13. 49/2013 Tenant Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-17A. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Umravmal Jai Kumar on 08.01.1960 at the initial rent of Rs. 35/- per month. 14. 50/2013 Tenant Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-10 canteen. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Choradia Textiles on 06.07.1974 at the initial rent of Rs. 110/- per month. 15. 51/2013 Tenant Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB 2 Tin shed. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri C.S. Rathore on 01.09.1972 at the initial rent of Rs. 5/- per month. 16. 52/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-44/TB-47A. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to One-Shanti Lal Modi C/o Shri Tarachand Amarchand Modi, Commission Agents, Madanganj on 10.09.1975 at the rent of Rs. 720/- per month. If the Godown is wrongly mentioned and is actually TB-40, the said Godown was tenanted to the Shri Shanti Lal Tarachand Jain on 13.01.1972 at the rent of Rs. 13/- per month. 17. 53/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-15. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Bhagwan Textiles on 01.01.1972 at the initial rent of Rs. 75/- per month. 18. 13/- per month. 17. 53/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-15. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Bhagwan Textiles on 01.01.1972 at the initial rent of Rs. 75/- per month. 18. 54/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-17 B. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Ratan Lal Satya Narayan, General Merchants & Commission Agents, Madanganj on 16.01.1960 at the initial rent of Rs. 35/- per month. 19. 55/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-30. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to The Delhi-Ajmer Goods (Transport) Company on 15.09.1971 at the rent of Rs. 75/- per month. 20. 56/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-44/TB-47A. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to One-Shanti Lal Modi C/o Shri Tarachand Amarchand Modi, Commission Agents, Madanganj on 10.09.1975 at the rent of Rs. 720/- per month. If the Godown is wrongly mentioned and is actually TB-40, the said Godown was tenanted to the Shri Shanti Lal Tarachand Jain on 13.01.1972 at the rent of Rs. 13/- per month. 21. 57/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-14. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to Shri Bhagwan Power Loom Factory on 22.12.1972 at the rent of Rs. 75/- per month. If the Godown is wrongly mentioned and is actually TB-24, the said Godown was tenanted to the Aditya Mills Ltd. on 01.10.1971 at the rent of Rs. 140/- per month. 22. 58/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-28. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to The Aditya Mills Ltd. on 01.03.1967 at the rent of Rs. 75/- per month.” LEGAL SUBMISSIONS:- 18. 140/- per month. 22. 58/2013 Trespasser Property in question is one of the godowns known by the earmarked No. TB-28. The said Property was in the custody of the Official Liquidator & the Same was tenanted to The Aditya Mills Ltd. on 01.03.1967 at the rent of Rs. 75/- per month.” LEGAL SUBMISSIONS:- 18. Learned counsel for the Old Company submits that while symbolic possession was given to the petitioner, the actual physical possession was not handed over at all by the OL and it was the bounden duty of the OL to handover the vacant possession of the entire property. As submitted herein above, since there was no right of the tenants surviving after the order passed by the Division Bench and upheld by the Supreme Court, the tenants cannot claim a better right than what of the person who had rented the property to them and as the right of the OL has not been recognized to hold the property, the so-called tenants inducted by the OL cannot claim to continue. The present company applications are merely applications filed on behalf of the Old Company while entering into the shoes of the OL and the provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act would therefore, apply and it cannot be said that the Company does not have locus to move the present company applications, moreover, as the order was passed by the Company Court dated 28/07/2011. He relies on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ponnammal (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. N. Muthuswamy Chettiar (Dead) By Lrs., (1996) 7 SCC 61 ; Saknow Industries P. Ltd. (In Liquidation), In re., 1990 Company Cases (Vol.67) 16; Official Liquidator Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Vs. Mahesh Metal Works, 1973 RLW 151; Kaku Singh and Ors. Vs. Gobind Singh and Ors., AIR 1959 (P&H) 468 ; Mumtaz Jehan Vs. Insha Allah alias Noor Jehan and ors., AIR 1983 (Del) 65 ; Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna and another Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay and another, (1983) 4 SCC 269 ; G.H. Gurumurthy S/o Halagashetty Vs. Kale Gowda S/o Kale Gowda, ILR 2009 (Kar) 3481 and in this manner, supported his contention regarding maintainability of the present company applications and claiming of the actual possession. 19. On behalf of the respondents-tenants in the Company Applications No.40/2013, 41/2013, 43/2013, 44/2013, 47/2013 and 53/2013 Mr. Kale Gowda S/o Kale Gowda, ILR 2009 (Kar) 3481 and in this manner, supported his contention regarding maintainability of the present company applications and claiming of the actual possession. 19. On behalf of the respondents-tenants in the Company Applications No.40/2013, 41/2013, 43/2013, 44/2013, 47/2013 and 53/2013 Mr. Rahul Kamwar, Advocate has vehemently opposed the said company applications and has raised several objections relating to maintainability. 20. The first objection of Mr. Rahul Kamwar, Advocate is with regard to the order dated 28/07/2011 passed by this Court. It is submitted that by a court’s order, the provisions of Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act would not be applicable for the purpose of the present applications by the Company which is neither under liquidation nor in any manner party to the liquidation proceedings. It is neither the creditor of the Company in liquidation nor the OL has moved the present applications. It is completely foreign to the proceedings and as the applications are not maintainable and the Court could not have passed order directing the Old Company to move applications. It is submitted that on perusal of the order dated 28/07/2011, it appears that the Old Company presented itself to be a Company in liquidation and the OL also did not oppose the consensual order passed and the respondents are not bound by the same. 21. It is further submitted that the present company applications were not maintainable as the jurisdiction vested in the Company Court under Section 446(2) is limited to entertain suits and claims in respect of the Company in liquidation. The intention of the legislature while incorporating the said action was to save the Company which is ordered to be wound up, from the expansive litigation and accelerate disposal of the winding up proceedings. As no relief is sought by or against the Company in liquidation, the applications are misconceived and deserve to be rejected. 22. The second objection raised by counsel for the respondents-tenants is in the light of the provisions contained in the Rent Control Act, 2001 claiming that the dispute between the parties is governed there under and the issue relating to tenancy, subtenancy and recovery of possession being question of facts which are disputable, in view of Section 18 of the said Act, the exclusive jurisdiction would lie to the Rent Tribunal to decide the matters relating to tenancy. It is, therefore, submitted that a regular suit ought to have been preferred by the applicant for the purpose of possession of the property which has been rented out. It is further submitted that the said property was in tenancy with the respondents-tenants since ages and even prior to the property being leased out to the Company in liquidation i.e. prior to 1943. Learned counsel relies on the judgment in the case of Avtar Chawla Vs. Sehgal papers Ltd., AIR 1993 (SC) 1380 and another judgment in the case of Dr. SP Bhargava Vs. Haryana Electric Steel Co. Ltd., 1998(94) Company Cases 867. 23. The further objection relating to maintainability is on the ground that once symbolic possession has already been delivered, fresh application for possession would not lie. It is submitted that admittedly symbolic possession had been handed over by the Company in liquidation to the Old Company on 24/02/1998. As such, the application under Section 446 read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 1956 is not maintainable. The only remedy available to the applicant was of instituting a fresh suit for ejectment/eviction. It is further submitted that obtaining the symbolic possession under the law is equivalent to obtaining actual physical possession. The issue cannot be re-agitated by raising a plea of eviction again and it can be only by moving an appropriate application before the competent court. 24. Another objection relating to maintainability of the applications is in terms of Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is submitted that there is no such direction of the Company by resolution to move such an application by the Old Company. No such authorization letter or resolution has been placed on record allowing him to represent in the legal affairs of the Company. Counsel relies upon Order 3 Rule 1 and Order 29 Rule 1 CPC for the said purpose and submits that on a conjoint reading of both the provisions the present company applications would not lie as they are unauthorized. He relies on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Transcore Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., (2008)1 SCC 125 and the judgment of Andhra High Court in the case of B. Ratnamal Vs. G. Rudramma, 1999(6) ALD 160 . 25. He relies on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Transcore Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., (2008)1 SCC 125 and the judgment of Andhra High Court in the case of B. Ratnamal Vs. G. Rudramma, 1999(6) ALD 160 . 25. Having heard both the counsels and having noted the facts in seriatim this Court finds that the rights of the applicant Company stood crystallized by the order passed by the Division Bench dated 03/11/1995, as noted herein above. In view of the directions laid down by the Division Bench, which were upheld by the Supreme Court, the entire property as directed by the Division Bench stood vested in the Old Company i.e. the applicant. It is also seen that the rent, which was collected by the OL, was directed to be paid to the Old Company and the OL has returned the entire rent which was collected by him for the properties which were rented out. Thus, for all intends and purposes, the said property does not remain under custodian of the OL after two months of passing of order dated 03/11/1995 and the proceedings, which have been undertaken by the OL and the Old Company thereafter before this Court, were not required as the Company Judge is not required to adjudicate the rights of the tenants vis-a-vis the Old Company which is not a company under liquidation. 26. The order dated 28/07/2011 proceeds on the ground that the Company Applications have been filed by the Company which is under liquidation under Section 446 of the Companies Act whereas the fact is that a company, which is not under liquidation, could not have moved application under Section 446 of the Companies Act. The provisions of the Act of 1956 did not envisage any other company which is not under liquidation to initiate company proceedings for the purpose of vindication of his rights. Once the property of the company under liquidation came to be vested with the Old Company in terms of the directions of this Court, the question of giving actual possession or symbolic possession did not arise and the provisions of the Companies Act could not have been invoked by the present Old Company. 27. Once the property of the company under liquidation came to be vested with the Old Company in terms of the directions of this Court, the question of giving actual possession or symbolic possession did not arise and the provisions of the Companies Act could not have been invoked by the present Old Company. 27. Apart from above, in view of the position, as narrated above that the applicants have also received the amount of rent which the OL had received earlier, those, who are occupying the properties rented out to them by the OL, have now become tenants of the Old Company and therefore, the Old Company has all the power as landlord to evict them and also to receive rent from them for the intervening period in accordance with the existing law governing the tenancies as the case may be. The company court would neither be in a position to examine the tenancy by recording evidence as there is no such provision under the Companies Act nor it can determine the rent which is payable from such tenants. In view of this Court, the OL does not have any powers vested in him after the order having been passed by the Division Bench dated 03/11/1995 and upheld by the Supreme Court relating to the property which is now vested with the Old Company. The proceedings, which have been undertaken before this Court, are non-est and misconceived. The remedy available to the applicant lies elsewhere. As regards any record, which is lying with the OL relating to the properties, which had been taken over under liquidation by the OL and rented out from time to time, suffice it to direct the OL to handover all the records, in original, relating to the new company (which was under liquidation) to the Old Company. 28. The contention of the applicant company of having stepped into the shoes of the OL for the purposes of provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act is misconceived as there is no such provision of law under the Act of 1956. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel regarding maintainability of the present company applications would therefore not apply in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench in the case, as quoted above. 29. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel regarding maintainability of the present company applications would therefore not apply in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench in the case, as quoted above. 29. This Court under Section 446 of the Act of 1956 has limited jurisdiction relating to entertaining suits and claims in respect of the Company in liquidation and is inclined to agree with learned counsel for the respondents that the present company applications are misconceived and are not maintainable. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents with regard to provisions of Section 291 of the Act of 1956 and there being no resolution by the Company empowering the said director to move such applications is correct in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Transcore Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. (supra). The applications could not have been filed at the behest of the OL requesting the Company Judge to allow the director to move such applications under Section 446 of the Act of 1956. Such request and directions issued by the Court earlier, in view of this Court, are contrary to the provisions of Section 446 of the Act of 1956 and the same are in-applicable. 30. Consequently, all the aforesaid company applications preferred by the applicant Old Company [Maharaja Kishangarh Somyag Mills Co. (Trans.) Ltd., Kishangarh] are held to be not maintainable and are accordingly dismissed with liberty as above. 31. It is made clear that if application is moved in accordance with law for evicting of tenants/trespassers by the Old Company before the competent court/tribunal, it is expected for the said court/tribunal to decide the suit/application for eviction within a period of one year from the date they are so preferred. The objection relating to limitation would not arise in view of the pendency of the applications before this Court since long and the court/tribunal is expected to decide such suit/application for eviction in accordance with law within a stipulated period on merits.