The court’s detailed legal analysis in a recent case involving possession rights in an old age home dispute sheds light on the intricacies of property law. The case delves into the concept of licenses, permissive possession, and the obligations of the occupants within the facility. Let’s delve deeper into the legal nuances governing possession rights in such sensitive settings.
Facts
- Shri Harpal Singh offered an alternative old age home free of cost to the plaintiffs.
- The Municipal Corporation of Lucknow constructed an old age home named Samarpan.
- Rules and regulations were framed by the appellant for grant of services at the old age home.
- Plaintiffs acted as whistleblowers highlighting financial misappropriations and inhumane attitude.
- Complaints were made regarding quality of food, facilities, medical treatment, and misuse of donated vehicles.
- Appellant was granted a lease to run the old age home for an initial period of 15 years with a condition of renewal for a further 15 years.
- Order vacated by the Court of Additional District Judge in appeal.
- Plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction before the Civil Court.
- Daughters of the plaintiffs agreed to act as guardians and take care of their parents’ medical needs.
- Cooperation fund deposited by inmates to be used for essential services, while expensive medical treatment to be borne by inmates.
- Administration had the right to expel any inmate violating complex rules.
- Plaintiffs filled admission form in 2016 with details of their children.
- Membership of plaintiffs cancelled by appellant due to behavioral issues.
- High Court allowed revision petition of plaintiffs, restoring interim injunction granted by Trial Court.
- Plaintiffs demanded inquiry into financial irregularities and mismanagement of the old age home.
- Appellant denied the assertions made by plaintiffs in a rejoinder affidavit.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Compensation for Fatal Accident
Issue
- Examination of the status of inmates in the old age home
- Determining whether the inmates are licensees or have a right to stay for their lifetime
- Clarification on whether the right to stay is a matter of right or not
Also Read: Judicial Review of Search and Seizure Authorization
Arguments
- The appellant sought deposit of Rs. 75,000 against security of Rs. 25,000.
- Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma stated in an affidavit that the plaintiffs, old-aged parents, have been abandoned by their children.
- There are 24 other inmates in the premises with no complaints made against them in the police station.
- The Station House Officer was not initially a party to the suit but was brought in by the plaintiffs in a revision petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
- The court held that entertaining the petition would cause greater injustice due to the purely temporary nature of the license.
- In a previous case, it was decided that a son residing with his parents cannot claim the legal character of a licensee.
- The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation and the State has submitted that they have no additional points to add in the present appeal.
Also Read: Land Acquisition Compensation Legal Analysis
Analysis
- Plaintiffs, as licensees, cannot seek an injunction to stay in the old age home unless they allow peaceful co-existence with other inmates.
- The court directs the Municipal Corporation and Social Welfare Department to examine living conditions in the old age home for the comfort of inmates.
- Legal services authorities are assigned to monitor the old age home regularly and provide aid if needed.
- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were permitted to stay in the old age home with certain payment obligations for food and medical care.
- The possession of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the old age home is that of a licensee without creating any property interest.
- The behavior of respondent nos. 1 and 2 towards fellow inmates and staff was found to be non-conducive, leading to the appeal being allowed for the owner to take possession.
- If one parent disrupts the peace of other inmates, the home administration can terminate the license and ask them to vacate the room.
- The High Court’s injunction granted to the plaintiffs is deemed legally unwarranted and suffering from patent illegality.
- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as licensees, have no legal right to protect their possession without complying with obligations, hence cannot seek an injunction against being dispossessed.
- The possession types recognized by law include owner, tenant, and permissive possession, with the plaintiffs falling under the permissive possession category.
- The plaintiffs, as licensees, must adhere to terms and conditions of their stay and maintain good behavior to avoid disturbing other inmates.
- A licensee does not have legal possession of the property as the legal possession always remains with the licensor.
- A license does not create an estate or interest in the immovable property of the grantor.
- Possession of a caretaker does not amount to possession in one’s right.
- A caretaker cannot maintain a suit for injunction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
- Settled possession or effective possession is required to protect one’s possession even against the true owner.
- A person residing in a house as a member of the family without claiming tenancy or license has no legal character or status.
- A person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain their possession and may use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser.
Decision
- The appellant is required to arrange an alternative old age home for respondent nos. 1 and 2
- The alternative home should be one offered by the Social Welfare Department
Case Title: SAMARPAN VARISHTHA JAN PARISAR Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL (2022 INSC 528)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003520-003520 / 2022
