Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: May, 7, 2022 at 11:40 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court overturned an impugned Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the revision petition was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was allowed and an interim injunction was restored, as was granted by the learned Trial Court.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that an old age home residents don’t have an absolute right of possession.
The Apex Court stated that the issue required to be examined herein is that what is the status of the inmates in the old age home, the licensee and/or whether they have a right to stay in the old age home for their life as a matter of right.
The Apex Court stated that 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.
That is the present appeal, we are concerned with the possession falling in the third category
The Apex Court stated that the respondents are in possession of a room of an old age home as a licensee allowed to enjoy their possession, but without acquiring any interest in it.
Depending on their licenses, respondents have a legal right to stay in the rooms of the old age home, provided they follow the terms and conditions of their license.
“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…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.”, The Court said.
The Apex Court further stated that the agony suffered by inmates either by their children or any other personal issue 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.
That the inmates must maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not disturb their fellow inmates, who are also senior citizens.
That the administration of the old age home is, therefore, free to terminate the license of an inmate who disrupts the peace of other inmates in the old age home and ask them to vacate the room assigned to them.
That even if the organizers of the old age home are not able to meet the expectation or requirements of the plaintiffs, would not confer a cause to the plaintiffs to disturb the other inmates.
“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.”, the court said.
As a result, the Apex Court overturned an impugned Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, by stating the following:
- That the plaintiffs cannot seek an injunction to stay in the old age home unless they allow other inmates, a peaceful co-existence. Therefore, we find that the injunction granted by the High Court suffers from patent illegality.
- That the appellant shall arrange an alternative old age home for respondents, like one offered by the Social Welfare Department.
- We also direct the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to depute a para-legal volunteer to visit the old age home at such intervals as is possible and the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority to visit the old age home at least once a month initially to find out the difficulties being faced by the inmates and to take redressal steps, including to provide legal aid if required by the inmates of the old age home.