If the owner says he will have to vacate, the caretaker cannot claim the property, the Supreme Court’s big decision

• Supreme Court set aside the decision of the lower court and the High Court
• The lower court had refused to hear the landlord’s petition
• The trial judge had referred to order 7 rule 11 (d) of the CPC

The Supreme Court has given a big decision regarding the claim of the caretaker regarding the property. The Supreme Court has held that a caretaker/servant can never claim a property despite its prolonged possession. The top court said that when the landlord asks, he (caretaker or servant) will have to vacate the house or property. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the trial court and the High Court in this regard.

The trial court and the high court refused to hear the landlord’s petition. The court had refused to proceed further on the petition in which the caretaker had pleaded not to vacate himself from the property premises.

The trial judge had dismissed the application on the ground that it was the subject matter of dispute. This can be verified only after recording a written statement at the instance of the owner. The trial court had held that this order was not within the scope of VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court had also confirmed that order of the lower court. Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC provides that if the statement made in the plaint is found to be barred by any law, the suit shall be dismissed.

Setting aside the order of the trial court, a bench headed by Justice Ajay Rastogi said that the trial court has clearly erred in this matter. Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the caretaker/servant can never acquire rights in the property despite his long possession. He said that as far as the plea of ​​adverse possession is concerned, the caretaker/servant will have to give the possession immediately at the instance of the owner.