Possession relative to a caretaker is permissive and termination of such agency entitles the principal to a decree of ejectment.

The Plaintiff (Respondent), a public limited company, claimed to be a lawful tenant of the suit property (2153-2157, Turkman Gate, Delhi) since 1974.

Due to Supreme Court restrictions on manufacturing in the walled city, the Plaintiff stopped operations but kept machinery and records on-site.

On 30.09.1995, the Plaintiff inducted the Defendant (Appellant), an employee of its sister concern (Victor Cable Industries Ltd.), as a caretaker for the premises.

After the Defendant was terminated from the sister concern in 1997, he filed for an injunction against dispossession, which was granted pending due process.

The Plaintiff issued a notice on 01.08.2006 terminating the caretaker arrangement and seeking vacant possession.

The trial court (ADJ-10, Tis Hazari) decreed the suit for ejectment on 02.12.2022, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of ejectment against the Defendant in respect of the suit premises?

2. Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of Victor Cable Industries Ltd.?

3. Whether the Plaintiff’s alleged lack of valid tenancy under the original owners (Balkrishan Dass, HUF) disentitled it from seeking possession from the caretaker?

The Court applied the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 96, Order XLI) regarding appeals from original decrees.

It relied on the doctrine of "licensor-licensee" relationships where a caretaker’s possession is permissive and terminates upon notice.

The court also implicitly applied the principle that a person in settled possession (the Plaintiff) can maintain a suit for recovery of possession against a licensee/caretaker without necessarily proving absolute ownership against the world, as long as the Defendant's induction by the Plaintiff is established.

The Court found that the inter se disputes between the Plaintiff and its landlords regarding the validity of the 1974 tenancy were irrelevant to the present dispute.

The core issue was whether the Plaintiff had possession and subsequently inducted the Defendant. The Court noted that the Defendant’s defense—that he was put in possession by Victor Cable Industries Ltd.—was unsupported by evidence.

Crucially, the Defendant's own admissions during cross-examination showed he represented the Plaintiff before PF authorities, contradicting his claim that he was not inducted by them.

The Court further observed that the Defendant's attempts to obtain a separate electricity connection by claiming a third party (Suhaib Ahmed) was the owner further eroded his credibility.

Since the Defendant was established as a caretaker, his right to occupy ceased once the Plaintiff's permission was withdrawn via notice.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment. Consequently, the Defendant became an unauthorized occupant liable for ejectment. The Court affirmed that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the property bearing No. 2153-2157, Turkman Gate, Delhi. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.