Karnataka High Court Refuses Injunction to Man Occupying House Since 1970s Without Rent Agreement, Says He Was Permitted To Stay As Caretaker
|The Court said that long-term occupation as a caretaker without any rent agreement or ownership right cannot create a legal bar against eviction by the rightful owners.
The Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with a Trial Court’s order denying interim injunction to a man who claimed to have been living in the suit residential property since the 1970s. The Court held that he was merely permitted to stay as a caretaker by the deceased original owner and that his continued possession created no legal right or entitlement against the owner’s heirs.
A Single Bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha observed, “The plaintiff who was admittedly permitted by deceased Smt. U. Manorama Rao to stay in a portion of the suit property for the purpose of taking care of the said property continues in possession of the property only on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiff cannot be held to have acquired any interest in the property and is under an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand.”
Advocate P.D. Surana appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Arun Govindraj appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant–Plaintiff filed a suit before the Sessions Court seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from interfering with his alleged settled possession of the residential property. Along with the suit, they also sought an interim injunction to restrain interference and alienation during the pendency of the suit.
The Plaintiff claimed that he was inducted into the rear portion of the house in the early 1970s on a nominal monthly rent of Rs. 250 by the deceased original owner, and had been residing there uninterruptedly ever since, while also maintaining the entire property. He asserted that this long-term possession amounted to settled possession and sought protection through a court injunction.
The Defendants, including the deceased owner’s sons and legal heirs, submitted that the Plaintiff was merely a caretaker allowed to stay in the servant quarters without any rent agreement. They placed on record bank statements showing that one of the defendants’ daughters was transferring Rs. 5,000 monthly to the Plaintiff, further evidencing a caretaker arrangement and not tenancy.
The Trial Court dismissed the interim applications. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff approached the High Court.
Reasoning of the Court
The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s findings and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that he was in lawful possession or had any tenancy rights, stating, “The plaintiff not produced anything to prove that he is paying rent and he has failed to prove the prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favour.”
The Court noted that possession was only permissive and did not confer any right in property. It observed, “The revenue records of the suit property stand in the name of the defendants. The plaintiff has not produced any documents to demonstrate that he is a tenant or that he has paid rent either to Smt. U. Manorama Rao or to the defendants.”
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (2012), where it was held that a caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession, and the caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.
The Court observed that in the absence of a valid tenancy, lease, or licence arrangement, the Plaintiff had no locus to seek equitable relief. “…the plaintiff who was admittedly permitted by deceased Smt. U.Manorama Rao to stay in a portion of the suit property for the purpose of taking care of the said property continues in possession of the property only on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiff cannot be held to have acquired any interest in the property and is under an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand. Hence it is clear that the plaintiff cannot seek for an injunction against the defendants”, the Bench observed.
The Court affirmed the Trial Court’s refusal to grant interim injunction, holding that there was no error in its assessment of facts or application of law.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, being devoid of merit.
Cause Title: Sriramulu v. U. Ravi Rao & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:21576)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates P.D. Surana, R. Krishna Kishore
Respondents: Advocate Arun Govindraj