Tuesday, Jul 07, 2020 | Last Update : 03:16 PM IST

104th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra2119871152629026 Tamil Nadu114978665711571 Delhi100823720883115 Gujarat36858263231967 Uttar Pradesh2770718761785 Telangana2390212703295 Karnataka234749849372 West Bengal2212614711757 Rajasthan2026315965459 Andhra Pradesh200198920239 Haryana1750413335276 Madhya Pradesh1528411579617 Bihar12140901497 Assam11737743414 Odisha9526648648 Jammu and Kashmir84295255132 Punjab64914494132 Kerala5623334128 Chhatisgarh3207257814 Uttarakhand3161258642 Jharkhand2815204520 Goa181310617 Tripura158012061 Manipur13897330 Himachal Pradesh107074610 Puducherry101148014 Nagaland5782280 Chandigarh4874016 Arunachal Pradesh269781 Mizoram191130 Sikkim125650 Meghalaya80431
  India   All India  08 Jan 2017  Caretaker can’t claim right over property: Supreme Court

Caretaker can’t claim right over property: Supreme Court

THE ASIAN AGE. | J VENKATESAN
Published : Jan 8, 2017, 1:56 am IST
Updated : Jan 8, 2017, 7:03 am IST

The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal.

Supreme Court of India
 Supreme Court of India

New Delhi: A person holding the owner’s premises gratuitously or in the capacity as a caretaker or relative or a servant would not acquire any legal right or interest in the property, the Supreme Court has held.

A bench of justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Uday Lalit said 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 legal right in the said property. The bench said 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 premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.

It said protection of the court can only be granted 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. The bench was dealing with an appeal against an interim order of the Bombay high court reversing a trial court verdict refusing to grant possession to a caretaker, Azeem Jagani. The original owners, Behram Tejani and others appealed against this interim order. The SC set aside the HC’s interim order and directed it to proceed in accordance with the law.

Tags: supreme court, property
Location: India, Delhi, New Delhi