The Supreme Court, in Behram Tejani vs. Azeem Jagani, has reiterated that a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right or interest on the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequences. The bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit restored a city civil court order, which had rejected the prayer for interim injunction restraining the defendants from from dis-possessing plaintiff from the suit premises without following due process of law. It was the case of defendants that the maternal grand-mother of the plaintiff was merely allowed to use and occupy the suit premises by the defendants out of love and sympathy without any fees or compensation and that the suit premises belonged to them. Setting aside the high court order, the court referred to Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRS, wherein it has been held as follows:
No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.
Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.
The courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the 9 premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.
The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.
The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession....
No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.
Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.
The courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the 9 premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.
The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.
The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession....
Comments
Post a Comment