Case: Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar &amp; Ors Vs. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal &amp; Ors

injunction between the plaintiff – brother, who was given the property in question as a caretaker, the owner being sister of the plaintiff. An argument was raised before this Court that the possession of a caretaker can never be a possession in ones right and no suit for injunction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was maintainable. It was held as under: 83. Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and Judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the defendant. xx xx xx 97. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallised as under: (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour. (5) 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. 21. In view of such finding, the appeal was allowed and possession of the suit premises was directed to be handed over to the appellant, the owner. 22. In another judgment reported as Behram Tejani & Ors. v. Azeem Jagani (2017) 2 SCC 759, the respondent in appeal filed a suit claiming injunction, restraining the defendants from dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit premises. This Court held as under: 14. Thus, a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right or interest in the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequences. In the circumstances, the City Civil Court was right and justified in rejecting the prayer for interim injunction and that decision ought not to have been set aside by the High Court. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal and restore the order dated 29-4-2013 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No. 344 of 2013 in Suit No. 408 of 2013. 23. Now, adverting to the facts of the present appeal, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – plaintiffs were permitted to stay in the old age home subject to certain payments to meet the necessary expenses of food and minor medical care. The possession of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a room of an old age home is that of a licensee permitted to enjoy the possession, but without creating any interest in the property. The appellants found the behavior of respondent nos. 1 and 2 not conducive to the fellow inmates and the staff of the old age home. This Court will not exercise a judicial review about the opinion of the appellants. On the legal issue, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as licensees have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had no legal right to protect their possession without complying with the corresponding obligations, as their possession is not a legal possession but only a permissive possession, they cannot seek any injunction to restrain the management of the old age home not to dispossess them. 24. It is an unfortunate situation when the parents cannot be taken care of by the children, but the fact remains that abandonment of parents by their children is now a hard fact of life. Parents do find it difficult to reconcile the situation that at that age they have to stay in old age home. Therefore, one can understand the mental trauma which the parents face in the evening of their life but the agony suffered by a parent cannot be a cause of disturbance to the other inmates or to the organizers who have resolved to take care and run the old age home. The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizens. Therefore, if one parent is the cause of disruption of peace of other inmates in the old age home, the administration of the old age home is at liberty to terminate the license and ask the inmate to vacate the room allotted to them. Even if the organizers of the old age home are not able to meet the expectation or requirements of the plaintiffs, that would not confer a cause to the plaintiffs to disturb the other inmates. As a licensee, the plaintiffs have no right to stay in the accommodation allotted which is purely an approach to a human problem faced by the people in old age. The plaintiffs have even been offered alternative accommodation as well. 25. As a licensee, the plaintiffs cannot seek an injunction to stay in the old age home unless they allow other inmates, a peaceful co-existence.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In the present appeal, we are concerned with the possession falling in third category. This Court in a judgment reported as Associated Hotels of India v. R.N. Kapoor AIR 1959 SC 1262  has held that in case of a licensee, the legal possession continues with the owner as in terms of Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, grant of a mere right to do upon the property of another, something which would in the absence of such right be unlawful. Thus, this is the essential characteristic which distinguishes a license from a lease.13. In Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit (1971) 1 SCC 276,  it has been held that a lease creates an interest in the property whereas a license creates no estate or interest in the immovable property of the grantor. It was held as under:8. A licence confers a right to do or continue to do something in or upon immovable property of grantor which but for the grant of the right may be unlawful, but it creates no estate or interest in the immovable property of the grantor. A lease on the other hand creates an interest in the property demised.14. In Maganlal Radia v. State of Maharashtra 1971 Mh.L.J. 57, a lessee filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the orders passed by the Collector, Bombay calling him to vacate a plot situated on the Chowpatty Foreshore. One of the questions examined was whether the petitioner had a right to continue in possession for as long as possible. It was held as under:1. …As a matter of substantive law, therefore, the petitioner has no colour of right to remain in possession of the suit premises and has no answer to the respondents claim that he should vacate the land in question, and the present petition appears to have been filed merely for the purpose of gaining time and remaining in possession as long as possible.15. The High Court declined to entertain the petition on the ground that the petitioner was merely a licencee. It was held that the injustice that would have been caused if the present petition was entertained would be greater in view of the fact that the licence was for a purely temporary purpose.18. The Division Bench of Madras High Court in a judgment reported as General Merchant Association rep. by Secretary and Treasurer & Ors. v. The Corporation of Chennai , rep. by its Commissioner, Chennai 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 848 held that appellants were allottees of a shop in the Corporation Fruit Market. The shopkeepers challenged the action of the Corporation terminating their licence and calling upon the licencees to vacate and surrender possession of the respective shops in their occupation. It was held, while dismissing the writ petitions, as under:24. The entire case law on the subject revolves around the cardinal touch stone at which the relationship between the parties who claim to be licensors or licensees or lessors or lessees has to be decided is whether the grant creates an interest or estate in the property within the subject matter of the agreement. Delivery of exclusive possession, as has been held would not be conclusive to hold that the grant is a lease. The surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties as in the present case show that no interest in the property have not been created at any point of time in favour of the writ petitioners/licensees of the Municipal Corporation stalls and the claims of the petitioners that they are lessees is far-fetched and cannot be sustained.26. It is also equally well settled the position of a licensee after termination becomes unlawful and the licensee is not entitled to any injunction restraining the licensor from evicting him as unlike a tenant a licensee does not have judicial possession and the possession always remains with the licensor and what was granted is a privilege in terms of the licence, which in the absence of such a grant becomes unlawful.27. The occupation of the writ petitioners with respect to the stalls/shops in public market is referable to the licence originally granted as their status is that of a licensee. Once such a licence is terminated, the possession of the stalls become unlawful as they have no right and the possession of such possession after termination is not protected by any statutory provision. In terms of Section 63 of the Easements Act 1982, where licence is revoked the licensee is entitled to reasonable time to leave the property for removing all his goods which he has been allowed to place. A person continuing in the premises after the termination of licence, his status is as already pointed out is unlawful and he has no semblance of any right to continue in the premises.20. Another three-Judge Bench in a judgment reported as Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs (2012) 5 SCC 370  was examining the question of injunction between the plaintiff – brother, who was given the property in question as a caretaker, the owner being sister of the plaintiff. An argument was raised before this Court that the possession of a caretaker can never be a possession in ones right and no suit for injunction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was maintainable. It was held as under:83. Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and Judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the defendant.97. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallised as under:(1) 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.(2) 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.(3) 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.(4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour.(5) 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.21. In view of such finding, the appeal was allowed and possession of the suit premises was directed to be handed over to the appellant, the owner.22. In another judgment reported as Behram Tejani & Ors. v. Azeem Jagani (2017) 2 SCC 759,  the respondent in appeal filed a suit claiming injunction, restraining the defendants from dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit premises. This Court held as under:14. Thus, a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right or interest in the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequences. In the circumstances, the City Civil Court was right and justified in rejecting the prayer for interim injunction and that decision ought not to have been set aside by the High Court. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal and restore the order dated 29-4-2013 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No. 344 of 2013 in Suit No. 408 of 2013.23. Now, adverting to the facts of the present appeal, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – plaintiffs were permitted to stay in the old age home subject to certain payments to meet the necessary expenses of food and minor medical care. The possession of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a room of an old age home is that of a licensee permitted to enjoy the possession, but without creating any interest in the property. The appellants found the behavior of respondent nos. 1 and 2 not conducive to the fellow inmates and the staff of the old age home. This Court will not exercise a judicial review about the opinion of the appellants. On the legal issue, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as licensees have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had no legal right to protect their possession without complying with the corresponding obligations, as their possession is not a legal possession but only a permissive possession, they cannot seek any injunction to restrain the management of the old age home not to dispossess them.24. It is an unfortunate situation when the parents cannot be taken care of by the children, but the fact remains that abandonment of parents by their children is now a hard fact of life. Parents do find it difficult to reconcile the situation that at that age they have to stay in old age home. Therefore, one can understand the mental trauma which the parents face in the evening of their life but the agony suffered by a parent cannot be a cause of disturbance to the other inmates or to the organizers who have resolved to take care and run the old age home. The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizens. Therefore, if one parent is the cause of disruption of peace of other inmates in the old age home, the administration of the old age home is at liberty to terminate the license and ask the inmate to vacate the room allotted to them. Even if the organizers of the old age home are not able to meet the expectation or requirements of the plaintiffs, that would not confer a cause to the plaintiffs to disturb the other inmates. As a licensee, the plaintiffs have no right to stay in the accommodation allotted which is purely an approach to a human problem faced by the people in old age. The plaintiffs have even been offered alternative accommodation as well.25. As a licensee, the plaintiffs cannot seek an injunction to stay in the old age home unless they allow other inmates, a peaceful co-existence.