Advocates Appeared:
Anil Nag, ANIL PAVAR, B.P.GUPTA, I.S.MATHUR, MAEHSVAR DAYAL, R.K.MAKHIJA

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The application filed by the auction purchaser for delivery of possession was within the prescribed limitation period, as the sale became absolute on 8th July 1980, and the application was filed on 18th February 1981, which is within one year of that date (!) .

2. The objections raised by the respondents, claiming they were in lawful possession as tenants since 1967, are unsubstantiated. The evidence produced by the respondents, including rent receipts, statements, and other documents, was either not properly proved, was not examined from the original authors, or was found to be fabricated or forged (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. The respondents' claim to have been in possession prior to the auction sale in 1973 was contradicted by the evidence showing that the premises were vacant until at least 1978, and their alleged possession before that time was not supported by credible or admissible evidence. The sale of the property in 1973 was to a different entity, and the respondents could not have lawfully been tenants prior to that sale (!) (!) (!) .

4. Certain documents, such as the alleged letter Ex AW8/10 and the application for the sales tax department, were determined to be forged or fabricated, and their contents were not proved to be genuine or reliable (!) (!) .

5. The evidence of witnesses who claimed prior possession or tenancy was discredited due to inconsistencies, lack of proper cross-examination, or procedural deficiencies, such as the absence of the original authors for examination (!) (!) .

6. The court emphasized that documents cannot speak lies, but in this case, the documents presented by the respondents were found to be fabricated, and their claims of possession since 1967 were not credible or supported by admissible evidence (!) .

7. The court held that the respondents did not prove their possession as tenants prior to the sale in 1973, and even if they had, the principle of lis pendens would apply, preventing them from resisting the auction purchaser’s right to possession (!) (!) (!) .

8. As a result, the court granted the application of the auction purchaser, issued warrants of possession, and directed the eviction of the respondents from the premises, including demolishing any structures raised later by the respondents (!) .

9. The application against certain other individuals, who had settled out of court, was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the auction purchaser (!) (!) .

10. Overall, the court concluded that the auction purchaser is entitled to possession of the property, and the respondents' claims of tenancy or prior possession are not supported by credible evidence. The possession of the auction purchaser should be restored by dispossessing the respondents and demolishing any unauthorized constructions (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.