Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order dated 17.11.2012 whereby application moved by him under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondents had been given the possession of the property as caretaker. Suit for mandatory injunction had been filed by the petitioner that the defendants be got removed from the suit property and decree of permanent injunction has also been sought restraining the defendants from removing any article from the suit property. Relief of damages/mesne profits has also been claimed Learned counsel has submitted that since the possession of the respondents over the suit property was admittedly permissive possession, the suit of the petitioner was liable to be decreed on the basis of admissions. In support of his case, learned counsel has placed reliance on Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) SC (2012) wherein it was held as under: - - Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as under: - - 1. No one acquires titled 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. 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.
(3.) THE protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.;