Caretaker Agreement India

19. The applicant also argued Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai/S.M. Krishnan (1989) 4 CSC 603, with the Court holding that the agent was not in the client`s possession and owned the caretaker. The Court considers that the agent`s possession belongs to the adjudicator power and, in light of the trust relationship, the agent cannot be allowed to claim his own property. Accordingly, the respondent had no right, title and/or no interest in the ownership of the complaint and had no bribes in legal possession. As a result, the termination action under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is totally misunderstood. The applicant submitted that the High Court had upheld in the impugned judgment a serious violation of the Tribunal`s judgment. The janitor or agent owns the owner`s property only in the name of the owner. 2. Concierge, caretaker or servant can never acquire interest in the property, regardless of its long property. The concierge or servant must, upon request, give the property immediately.

A bench of judges Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Uday Lalit said that no one acquires ownership of the property if he or she has been allowed to stay in the premises for free. Even in the case of a long possession of years or decades, such a person would not acquire any legal right to that property. The bank said custodian, custodian or servant can never acquire the interest of the property regardless of its long property. The concierge or servant must, upon request, give the property immediately. The courts do not have the right to protect the property of a caretaker, servant or person authorized to live in the premises for a period of time, either as a friend, relative, janitor, or as a servant. … Funds advanced so far by the party of the second part. 15. The party of the first party currently has a janitor. From the day of this agreement, the party of the second… only appointed as janitor of the land under the agreement of 17-1-1981 and the aforementioned appointment was cancelled and a new janitor was appointed.

Respondents 1 to 3 asked that… agreed to be sold to the applicant in the partial execution of the sale agreement of 17-1-1981. The accused handed over the property to the complainant with confidence to keep the same thing as the janitor until the… 15. The appeal of the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal`s judgment, is in complete contradiction with the law of the Court of Justice in the case of Mahabir Prasad Jain/Ganga Singh (1999) 8 CSC 274. The applicant also submitted that, in the above case, the Tribunal had defined the parameters of Section 6 of the Special Relief Act of 1963.

Categories:Uncategorised