SAMARPAN VARISHTHA JAN PARISAR & ORS. versus RAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 06-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
625
SAMARPAN VARISHTHA JAN PARISAR & ORS.
v.
RAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3520 of 2022)
MAY 06, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
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]
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 625
625
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
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 a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.