Tenant Cannot Claim Ownership Through Adverse Possession Without Hostile Possession: Supreme Court Orders Eviction

Mere Long Possession Does Not Confer Ownership; Tenant Must Prove Open, Continuous, and Hostile Possession - In a significant judgment Supreme Court set aside the Orissa High Court’s order and upheld the eviction of a tenant who had falsely claimed ownership of a rented shop through adverse possession. The Court ruled that "a tenant in permissive possession cannot later turn around and claim adverse possession without proving a clear and hostile assertion of ownership against the landlord."

The case, Rabindranath Panigrahi v. Surendra Sahu, stemmed from a long-standing tenancy dispute over two shop rooms in the Madhu Mandir Bungalow, Berhampur, originally owned by Smt. Ashalata Devi. The plaintiff, claiming to be Ashalata Devi’s adopted son and legal heir, sought eviction of the tenant, who had stopped paying rent since 2001 and falsely claimed ownership.

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court ruled in favor of the landlord, rejecting the tenant’s claim of adverse possession. However, the Orissa High Court reversed these findings, concluding that the landlord-tenant relationship was not proven. Setting aside the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that "the findings of the lower courts were based on sound evidence, and the High Court erred in interfering with settled facts."

"Tenant’s Permissive Possession Cannot Become Adverse Without Clear Evidence of Hostile Possession"

The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction in 2003, claiming that the defendant had been his tenant since 1974, paying ₹1,000 per month in rent. After failing to pay rent since July 2001, a legal notice was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, terminating the tenancy. The defendant refused to vacate and instead claimed that he had become the owner through oral gift from the plaintiff’s adoptive mother and later through adverse possession.

Rejecting this argument, the Trial Court ruled in 2007 that: "No ownership over immovable property can be transferred through an oral gift. The defendant’s possession was permissive in nature, and he failed to prove any adverse possession."

The First Appellate Court in 2011 upheld this ruling, stating that: "Mere long possession, even for decades, does not result in ownership unless the tenant openly declares hostile possession to the knowledge of the landlord."

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle, ruling that "for adverse possession to be established, the possession must be hostile, open, and continuous for the statutory period. The tenant’s failure to pay rent does not automatically convert permissive possession into adverse possession."

"High Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction by Disturbing Settled Findings of Fact"

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court’s interference in the case, ruling that: "The scope of a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law. The High Court cannot reassess evidence and overturn concurrent factual findings unless there is a glaring perversity or misapplication of law."

The Supreme Court cited Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 and Jaichand v. Sahnulal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864), reiterating that: "A High Court must not act as a re-appellate court in a Second Appeal. Its role is to determine substantial legal issues, not to reappreciate evidence or reassess factual determinations already settled by the lower courts."

The Supreme Court ruled that "the High Court’s reversal of the eviction decree was unjustified and legally unsound. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court had rightly concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship was established, and the tenant’s claim of adverse possession was baseless."

"Tenant Ordered to Vacate Premises and Pay Dues"

Restoring the eviction order, the Supreme Court directed: "The tenant must vacate the premises within three months from today. All arrears, including rent and utility dues, must be cleared before handing over possession. The eviction must be carried out peacefully and in accordance with law."

The Court further ordered that: "The Orissa High Court Registrar shall ensure compliance with this order and communicate it to all concerned parties."

The Supreme Court’s ruling has reinforced that "tenants cannot misuse their long possession to claim ownership unless they meet the strict legal requirements of adverse possession."

By restoring the eviction decree and rejecting the High Court’s erroneous interference, the judgment ensures that "landlords are not deprived of their rightful property by tenants who refuse to vacate and falsely claim ownership."

Date of decision: 06/03/2025