True Owner Cannot Unlawfully Enter Tenanted Premises Under Guise Of Ownership To Commit Offence: Kerala High Court Upholds Landlord's Conviction

"Therefore, even a true owner cannot, under the guise of ownership, unlawfully enter premises in the lawful possession of another with the intent to commit an offence." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a landlord can be convicted for house trespass and mischief for unlawfully entering a tenanted room and throwing out the tenant's belongings.

A single-judge bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that criminal trespass is an offence against possession rather than ownership, affirming that even a property's true owner cannot use their title as a shield to unlawfully enter premises possessed by another with criminal intent.

The revision petitioner, who owned a room in Karadka Panchayat, had leased the premises to the de facto complainant. In May 2009, while the tenant and his wife were away, the landlord entered the room and flung out their household articles, causing a loss of Rs. 10,000. Relying on the testimonies of four independent eyewitnesses, the trial court convicted the landlord for house trespass and mischief, a finding that was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Court.

The primary question before the High Court was whether a property owner could be held criminally liable for house trespass for entering a premises that they legally own but have lawfully leased to a tenant. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts warranted interference under its limited revisional jurisdiction.

Addressing the core legal defense raised by the petitioner regarding his ownership of the property, the Court clarified that title to the property does not grant immunity from criminal charges if the premises are lawfully occupied by someone else. The bench emphasised that the room was legally leased to the complainant and the landlord's unauthorized entry with the intent to commit an unlawful act squarely attracted the offence of house trespass under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). "It is well settled that offences such as criminal trespass and house trespass are offences against possession and not against ownership."

The Court further noted that the testimonies of the four independent eyewitnesses clearly established that the accused unlawfully entered the room and committed mischief under Section 427 of the IPC by forcibly discarding the tenant's household articles. The bench categorically ruled that mere ownership of the property does not automatically absolve a landlord of criminal liability when they deliberately violate a tenant's lawful possession to vandalize their belongings. "In the present case, the mere fact that the accused is the owner of the room does not, ipso facto, absolve him of criminal liability when such entry is effected with the intention to commit an unlawful act."

"Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same... unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."

Discussing the scope of its powers under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the High Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is strictly supervisory and is intended solely to correct miscarriages of justice. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, the bench refused to reappreciate the evidence, noting that the lower courts had rightly relied on independent witnesses who had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. "The revisional court cannot reappreciate the evidence as an Appellate Court and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible."

Despite confirming the conviction, the Court adopted a lenient approach toward sentencing. Observing that the genesis of the incident was a landlord-tenant dispute and noting the absence of any proven criminal antecedents against the accused, the bench reasoned that the appellate court's sentence of three months simple imprisonment was somewhat harsh and warranted equitable modification. "Taking into account the nature of the dispute between the accused and PW1, as well as the motive which led to the commission of the offence, I am of the considered view that the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court... is somewhat harsh and warrants interference."

The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition by confirming the conviction but reducing the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for both offences. However, the bench maintained the direction requiring the landlord to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000 to the tenant under Section 357(3) of the CrPC, with a default sentence of one month of simple imprisonment.

Date of Decision: 26 March 2026