A caretaker’s possession is permissive and subservient to the person who inducted them. An admission of caretaker status is legally binding for an ejectment suit, and such possession cannot be converted into a right to occupy based on title disputes extrinsic to the party in possession.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1 - Ejectment - Recovery of possession - Where an individual is inducted into a property as a caretaker for the purpose of securing assets, their possession is permissive in nature. Upon termination of the caretaker arrangement, the occupant ceases to have any right to remain in the property. (Paras 1, 37, 51)

(B) Evidence - Admissions - The admission by the occupant regarding their role as a caretaker during trial proceedings constitutes substantive evidence, sufficient to establish the nature of their possession, rendering collateral disputes concerning the underlying title or validity of tenancy between third parties irrelevant to the present ejectment suit. (Paras 28, 40, 46)

(C) Appeal - Scope - Appellate courts should not interfere with findings of fact by a trial court where the evidence has been comprehensively appreciated and no illegality or perversity is demonstrated. (Paras 52, 53)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a business entity, sought the recovery of possession of the disputed premises from the defendant, who was originally kept as a caretaker to protect machinery and records. The defendant claimed to have been placed in possession by a sister organization and disputed the plaintiff's title, citing historical litigation between family members of the original property owners. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the defendant was a caretaker.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the defendant’s admission confirmed their status as a caretaker. It held that the validity of the original tenancy was not the central issue, as the defendant’s permissive possession was clearly established by evidence. The defendant failed to provide cogent proof of any independent right to occupy the premises.

Issues: Whether the defendant was in possession as a caretaker, whether the suit was maintainable despite collateral title disputes between third parties, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of ejectment.

Ratio Decidendi: An occupant admitted to be holding property as a caretaker enters into a permissive arrangement; such permission is revocable. Once revoked, the occupant is liable to vacate, and prior inter se disputes regarding the ownership of the property do not negate the legal relationship between the current plaintiff and the caretaker.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. historical tenancy and caretaker induction facts (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. caretaker status remains binding despite sister-company employment arguments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 43 , 45 , 46)
3. possessory claims are independent of underlying ownership or tenancy disputes. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
4. evidentiary admissions establish unauthorized occupancy post-notice. (Para 44 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
5. dismissal of appeal and confirmation of eviction order. (Para 52 , 53 , 54)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.12.2022 whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff for Ejectment, has been decreed by the learned Additional District Judge-10, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent, a public Limited Company had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 161/2006, through Mr. S.C. Khandelwal, Director, for seeking Possession of the Property bearing No. 2153 to 2157, Turkman Gate, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property).

3. The Plaintiff, stated that it is in the business of manufacture of Copper Wires and Zari Goods at its factory located at the Suit Property, which is constructed over a plot of 1800 square yards. The Plaintiff had been inducted as a tenant, since 01.01.1974 by Mr. Bal Krishan Dass, HUF, the owner of the Suit Property.

4. Subsequently, the dispute arose inter se the coparceners of Mr. Bal Krishan Das, HUF. One of its coparceners i.e. Mr. Hariskishan Gupta filed a Suit bearing CS(OS) No. 1/1984, titled Sh. Hari Krishan Gupta vs. M/s Pannalal Girdharilal Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., for Declaration, against the Plaintiff and other members of Mr. Balkishan Dass, HUF challenging the tenancy of the Plaintiff in the Suit premises created by Mr. Balkrishan Das, HUF.

5. In the interim, an Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed on 03.01.1984 wherein the Plaintiff herein was restrained from transferring the Suit Property or creating third party rights by way of tenancy or otherwise, in favour of any other person. The Plaintiff through his Counsel, undertook not to create any third-party rights. The Plaintiff continued to be a lawful tenant in the Suit premises, since 01.01.1974. His Machinery and Plant, as well as, records, fixtures, furniture etc. are lying in the Suit premises.

6. The Plaintiff had to stop his manufacturing activities of copper wire and Zari goods, in the Suit premises, pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court of India imposing restrictions on carrying manufacturing activities in the walled city of Delhi.

7. While the Plaintiff stopped the manufacturing activities, but his machinery etc. and other moveable goods, are still lying in the Suit Property. For the safety and security of the factory and its assets, the Plaintiff kept the Defendant as a caretaker on 30.09.1995, to take care of the premises.

8. The Defendant was an employee of the Plaintiff’s sister concern i.e. Victor Cable Industries Ltd. and was working as a Bank Assistant in the said Company. The Victor Cable Industries Ltd., however, has no concern whatsoever with the Suit Premises. The Defendant was given a room at the entrance on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Block of the Suit Premises, to live therein for the said purpose.

9. The Defendant, who was an employee of the Victor Cable Industries Ltd., unauthorisedly stopped coming to the Office of the Company on his own since April, 1998 and was, therefore, removed from the services on the ground of unauthorised absence and misconduct, for not following the instructions of his employer in May, 1997.

10. The Defendant thereafter, filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction against Mr. Shivraj Gupta, Director of Victor Cable Industries Ltd., on false and frivolous averments, contentions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document