Easement Act, 1882: s. 52 – License under – Revocation of – Inmates of the old age home – Legal status of – Held: Possession of inmates in a room of an old age home is that of a licensee permitted to enjoy possession, without creating any interest in the property – Inmates have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license – They are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizens – On facts, behavior of respondent-inmates not conducive to fellow inmates and staff, thus, asked to vacate the room – As a licensee, the inmates cannot seek an injunction to stay in the old age home as their possession is not a legal possession but only a permissive possession – Thus, the injunction granted by the High Court suffers from patent illegality. Supreme Court-Directions: Inmates in old age home – Unfortunate situation that the parents cannot be taken care of by their children and are abandoned to stay in old age homes – Municipal Corporation or the Social Welfare Department to examine the living conditions of the inmates in the old age home and provide them as comfortable conditions as are possible at that age – Directions to State and District Legal Services Authority to visit the old age home to find out the difficulties being faced by the inmates and to take redressal steps.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Law recognizes three types of possession. One as that of an owner, including co-owners; second as a tenant, when a right is created in the property; and thirdly permissive possession, the possession which otherwise would be illegal or that of as a trespasser. In the instant appeal, the concern is with the possession falling in third category. [Para 12][630-E-F]
1.2 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - plaintiffs were permitted to stay in the old age home subject to certain payments to meet the necessary expenses of food and minor medical care. The possession of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a room of an old age home is that of a licensee permitted to enjoy the possession, but without creating any interest in the property. The appellants found the behavior of respondent nos. 1 and 2 not conducive to the fellow inmates and the staff of the old age home. This Court will not exercise a judicial review about the opinion of the appellants. On the legal issue, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as licensees have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had no legal right to protect their possession without complying with the corresponding obligations, as their possession is not a legal possession but only a permissive possession, they cannot seek any injunction to restrain the management of the old age home not to dispossess them. [Para 23][635-G-H; 636-A-C]
1.3 It is an unfortunate situation when the parents cannot be taken care of by the children, but the fact remains that abandonment of parents by their children is now a hard fact of life. Parents do find it difficult to reconcile the situation that at that age they have to stay in old age home. Therefore, one can understand the mental trauma which the parents face in the evening of their life but the agony suffered by a parent cannot be a cause of disturbance to the other inmates or to the organizers who have resolved to take care and run the old age home. The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizens. Therefore, if one parent is the cause of disruption of peace of other inmates in the old age home, the administration of the old age home is at liberty to terminate the license and ask the inmate to vacate the room allotted to them. Even if the organizers of the old age home are not able to meet the expectation or requirements of the plaintiffs, that would not confer a cause to the plaintiffs to disturb the other inmates. As a licensee, the plaintiffs have no right to stay in the accommodation allotted which is purely an approach to a human problem faced by the people in old age. The plaintiffs have even been offered alternative accommodation as well. [Para 24][636-C-F]
1.4 As a licensee, the plaintiffs cannot seek an injunction to stay in the old age home unless they allow other inmates, a peaceful co-existence. Therefore, the injunction granted by the High Court suffers from patent illegality and is not warranted in law. The appellant would arrange an alternative old age home for respondent nos. 1 and 2, as one offered by the Social Welfare Department. [Para 25, 26][636-G-H]
Associated Hotels of India v. R.N. Kapoor AIR 1959 SC 1262 : [1960] SCR 368; Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit (1971) 1 SCC 276;
Maganlal Radia v. State of Maharashtra 1971 Mh.L.J. 57; Conrad Dias of Bombay v. Joseph Dias of Bombay 1994 SCC OnLine Bom 528; Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) & Ors. v. M/s. Hotel Malligi Pvt. Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 1; General Merchant Association rep. by Secretary and Treasurer & Ors. v. The Corporation of Chennai, rep. by its Commissioner, Chennai 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 848; Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 769 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 850; Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through Lrs. (2012) 5 SCC 370 : [2012] 3 SCR 841; Behram Tejani & Ors. v. Azeem Jagani (2017) 2 SCC 759 : [2017] 1 SCR 132.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.