Is a mortgagee in possession if he receives the amount of rent from the tenants?

The law on whether a mortgagee is a mortgagee in possession appears to have been dealt with in the Court of Appeal decision of Noyes v. Pollock (1886), 32 Ch. D. 53, where Cotton L.J. said at p. 61: In order to hold that a mortgagee not in actual possession is in receipt of the rents and profits, in my opinion it ought to be shewn not only that he gets the amount of the rents paid by the tenants, even although he gets their cheques or their cash, but that he receives it in such a way that it can be properly said that he has taken upon himself to intercept the power of the mortgagor to manage his estate, and has himself so managed and received the rents as part of the management of the estate. Bowen L.J. in the same decision at p. 64 said: But in the case where an estate is let to tenants, of course the mortgagee does not enter upon actual occupation of the demised premises. He may fall under the principle as a person who enters and takes possession of the rents and profits; but only, as it seems to me, if he does something which goes beyond the mere receipt of sums of money to which the rents and profits may amount, and reaches a point at which he displaces, for the purpose of realizing the security, the mortgagor from the control and dominion of the reversion of the estate which is demised. Unless the dominion and control is taken in that sense, the mere receipt of the produce of the management may be taken by the mortgagee, and yet he may stop short of taking the management itself. He may take the rents; that is not enough unless he takes the rent in such a way as to take upon himself, and out of the hands of the mortgagor, the business and the duty of collecting and being diligent in that respect.