NEW DELHI, Feb 14: The Supreme Court in Behram Tejani vs Azeem Jagani in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 2017 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 & even long possession in the capacity would be of no legal consequences.
The bench restored a city civil court order, which had rejected the prayer for interim injuction restraining the defendants from dispossessing plaintiff from the suit premises without following due process of law.
It was the case of defendants that the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff was merely allowed to use & occupy the suit premises by the defendants out of love & sympathy without any fee or compensation& that the suit premises belong to them.
It was held as follows:-
No one acquire 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.
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.
The protection of the court can only be granted to the person who had valid rent agreement, lease agreement in his favour.