JUSTICE Rohit W Joshi at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a tenant becomes a trespasser if he denies the ownership of the landlord and in such cases, a civil court has full jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The case involved a longstanding property dispute between the appellants Dilip Ramaji Poharwar and his family members (tenants) and PunjabraoVithalraoVaidhya and his family members (landlords). The tenants had earlier claimed that there was an agreement to sell the property in their favour. However, their claim was rejected by the court and the decision became final. Later, in 1996, the tenants denied the landlord’s ownership and claimed that they themselves were the owners. This denial changed their legal status.

 

According to the High Court, once a tenant rejects the landlord’s title, he no longer remains a tenant but becomes a trespasser - a person who is illegally occupying someone else’s property. After this, the landlord issued a legal notice and filed a case in the civil court seeking possession of the property. The trial court ruled in favour of the landlord in 2005, and the district court upheld the decision in 2011. The tenants then approached the High Court, arguing that the case should have been heard in the Small Causes Court. However, Justice Joshi rejected this argument. The court clearly stated that a trespasser cannot claim protection under tenancy laws. Once the tenant denies the landlord’s ownership, the relationship of landlord and tenant ends. From that moment, the person’s possession becomes illegal, and he is treated as a trespasser.

 

The court also said that cases against a trespasser must be filed in a civil court and not in the Small Causes Court. On the issue of delay, the High Court found that the case was filed within the legal time limit. The cause of action started when the tenants denied ownership in 1996, and the landlord filed the case soon after. With these observations, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the earlier orders. The landlords will now get possession of the property, as the tenants have been declared trespassers under the law.

 

1. The suit property was originally given on rent by Punjabrao Vaidhya (landlord) to Ramaji Poharwar (tenant).

2. During the tenancy, the tenant claimed there was an agreement to purchase the property and filed a suit for specific performance (1971).

3. The court dismissed this suit, and the dismissal became final around 1995.

4. After losing the case, the tenant denied the landlord’s ownership and claimed himself as owner in a reply filed on March 19, 1996.

5. Due to this denial, the landlord treated it as forfeiture of tenancy and filed a suit for possession (1996), treating the tenant as a trespasser. 6. The trial court (2005) and appellate court (2011) both ruled in favour of the landlord, and finally, the High Court dismissed the tenant’s second appeal and upheld the landlord’s right to possession.