Legal Scrutiny of Landlord and Tenant Dispute regarding Adverse Possession

Case Name: Rabindranath Panigrahi Vs. Surendra Sahu

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 19182 of 2022

Date: March 06, 2025

Quorum: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 

The disputed case revolves around two shop rooms in “Madhu Mandir,” Berhampur. The appellant, Rabindranath Panigrahi, claims to be the adopted son of original owner, who is Late Smt. Ashalata Devi, and the rightful landlord of the suit premises. The respondent, Surendra Sahu, was allegedly a tenant since 1974 but however he stopped paying rent in 2001. The plaintiff sought for the eviction and recovery of arrears, while the defendant denied any form of landlord-tenant relationship. He further claimed that the ownership through adverse possession or an oral gift from Ashalata Devi.

In the , Trial Court (2007), the ruling was in favor of the appellant at that time, confirming his ownership and ordering eviction. In the First Appellate Court (2011) , it Upheld the Trial Court’s decision. In High Court (2022) , both the rulings were overturned , stating that the landlord-tenant relationship was inferred without direct evidence. It allowed the defendant to remain in possession, advising the plaintiff to file a separate suit for title and possession.

ISSUES

 

1.  Whether the appellant had legally inherited disputed suit property from Late Smt. Ashalata Devi?
2.  Whether the respondent’s claim of the ownership in the said case through adverse possession or oral gift was valid?
3.  Whether the landlord-tenant relationship was correctly being established by the lower courts here?
4.  Whether the High Court made an error in overturning the concurrent findings of fact in a Second Appeal as in this case?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

1. Section 106, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – The Termination of lease 
2. Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – The scope of Second Appeal.
3. Property Law Principles– The Validity of oral gifts in property disputes.

 

ARGUMENTS

 

Petitioner’s Arguments:

 

1. The plaintiff lawfully inherited the suit premises as the adopted son of Ashalata Devib in the given case.
2. The Rent payments and occupancy since 1974  in the said case established a tenancy, even without entering into a contract or formal lease deed.
3. The defendant stopped paying rent from July 2001 and he failed to vacate despite legal notice.
4. The defendant’s possession was permissive, and mere possession does not create ownership as stated in the present case.
5. Under property law, immovable property cannot be transferred through an oral gift. It becomes in valid.

 

Respondent’s Arguments:

 

1. There is no formal lease deed existed, and no direct evidence proved a landlord-tenant relationship.
2.  The defendant had remained in the possession for decades without challenge, fulfilling the criteria for adverse possession.
3. The respondents claimed that Ashalata Devi had orally transferred ownership before her demise

 

ANALYSIS

 

 The appellant was the rightful owner was that the landlord-tenant relationship was established based on circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of a formal lease agreement. The respondent failed to further prove adverse possession because his possession was initially permissive and lacked hostile intent.. Oral gifts cannot confer ownership over immovable property

The High Court wrongly re-evaluated factual findings, which is not permissible under Section 100 CPC unless there is a substantial question of law .The High Court overlooked that two lower courts had. already ruled against the defendant on adverse possession and tenancy.  The substantial questions of law framed by the High Court were unjustified as they involved factual appreciation rather than interpretation of law. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by disturbing settled findings of fact. Adverse possession was not proven—the respondent’s occupation was permissive, and he failed to establish hostile ownership. Landlord-tenant relationship was upheld based on continuous occupation, rental payments, and legal notices. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, restoring the eviction order passed by the lower courts.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The High Court’s judgment is set aside.
2. The defendant (Surendra Sahu) is directed to vacate the premises within three months.
3. All pending arrears, including rent and utility dues, must be cleared before vacating.
4. The Registry is instructed to communicate this order to the Registrar General, High Court of Orissa.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This judgment reaffirms the limited scope of Second Appeal. The High Courts cannot re-examine factual findings unless there is a clear question of law. This case also further emphasizes that permissive possession does not lead to adverse possession, and oral gifts cannot transfer ownership of immovable property as the case was here. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the lawful owners are protected from wrongful possession claims while also further reinforcing the importance of proper legal documentation in tenancy dispute.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer

lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY POOJA PARAMESWARAN