The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling reinforcing landlords’ rights, holding that a tenant who takes possession of a property under a valid rent deed cannot later challenge the landlord’s ownership
or claim title through adverse possession.
The verdict was pronounced in the decades-old case of Jyoti Sharma vs Vishnu Goyal, a tenancy dispute dating back to 1953, and was delivered by Justices JK Maheshwari and K Vinod Chandran, overturning findings of the trial court, appellate court, and Delhi High Court, LiveLaw reported.
The case concerned a shop originally rented by the tenants’ predecessors from Ramji Das in 1953, with rent paid consistently over the years to Ramji Das and later to his heirs. Following a 1953 relinquishment deed and a Will dated 12 May 1999, ownership passed to Jyoti Sharma, Ramji Das’s daughter-in-law, who sought eviction to expand her family’s sweets and savouries business. The tenants, sons of the original renter, disputed her ownership, alleging that the property belonged to Ramji Das’s uncle, Sua Lal, and claiming the Will was fraudulent.
According to LiveLaw report, the top court rejected these claims, terming the lower courts’ conclusions “perverse” and unsupported by evidence. The bench cited Exhibit P-18, the 1953 relinquishment deed in favour of Ramji Das, and noted that the tenants had consistently paid rent to him and his heirs, confirming the landlord–tenant relationship.
The apex court stated that once a tenant accepts the landlord’s title by entering under a valid rent deed, paying rent, he is “estopped from disputing the landlord’s ownership.” It also upheld the 2018 probate, validating the Will and dismissing suspicion over the exclusion of the testator’s wife as “not a valid ground” to question its genuineness.
Acknowledging the long duration of tenancy, the SC granted tenants six months to vacate, conditional on clearing arrears and surrendering possession. The ruling clarifies that occupation under a rent agreement is permissive, not hostile, and strengthens landlords’ rights while defining the limits of tenant claims, particularly in cases of adverse possession.
