SANTOSH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. VIITH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sankatha Rai learned senior advocate appealing for the petitioner and Ms. M. S. Lata Krishnamurti appearing on behalf of contesting respondent.

(2.) This case has a story to tell. There is a house situated in Ghaziabad owned by Smt. R. Balamma who is the defendant-respondent in this case. She was a Government servant who after retirement moved for Delhi for sometime and for her own house in Ghaziabad, she made the present petitioner a caretaker and permitted him to use a portion of the disputed house. The petitioner is an employee of the Jal Nigam, i.e., to say a Government employee and bureaucrat and it cannot be said that he had any dearth of the Government accommodation.

(3.) Nevertheless the caretaker changed his mind and tried to spread all over the house in dispute by setting up a claim that he was in fact a tenant in the disputed premises. When the landlord asked the said caretaker to give back the portion in her house, instead, the caretaker filed a suit for injunction together with an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 C.P.C. which was allowed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Being aggrieved with the injunction order, the landlord moved an appeal and in which the appellate court while passing the order came to the conclusion that the so-called caretaker (petitioner) was unable to establish his status as a tenant. The appellate court while examining the case in hand further came to the conclusion that status of a caretaker would not change and it would remain so long he remain in possession over the portion in the disputed house. The only nomenclature which the caretaker could be given to was that of a trespasser or an 'unauthorized occupant' as defined in Section 2A of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1972).