In India, disputes between landlords and tenants often turn on whether long-term occupation gives the tenant some right to ownership. The doctrine of adverse possession — captured under Limitation Act, 1963 and earlier law — allows a person who occupies property adversely (i.e., without the owner’s permission) for a statutory period (typically 12 years for private property) to claim ownership. But what if someone started out as a tenant, paying rent with the owner’s knowledge? Does the mere passage of time convert them into an owner? Until recently the law was somewhat unsettled on how tenancy interacts with adverse possession.
The Supreme Court has now drawn a clear “bright line” in its judgment in the case of Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal, holding that a tenant cannot claim ownership of a rented property simply by virtue of long occupancy under a tenancy.
The case is Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal & Anr. (2025 INSC 1099), decided on 11 September 2025 by the Supreme Court of India.
Here are the main facts in simple terms:
- In 1953, a shop-room was rented by one Mr. Ramji Das to the father of the defendants (tenants).
- Mr. Ramji Das died in 1999, having executed a Will on 12 May 1999 leaving that shop room to his daughter-in-law, Ms Jyoti Sharma.
- The tenants kept occupying the shop for decades, paying rent to Mr. Ramji Das (and later his estate) from 1953 onwards.
- The landlord (Ms Sharma) filed a suit to (i) recover rent arrears from January 2000 onwards, and (ii) evict the tenants on the ground of bona-fide need (to expand her husband’s sweets business into that shop room).
- The tenants challenged the title of Mr Ramji Das and claimed they had long occupation and thus rights.
What the Court Held
The Supreme Court made several clear points. The key takeaway: just because someone has been a tenant for many years does not mean they become the owner. Below are the salient extracts and explanations.
Key Legal Holders
- The Court held:
“In a suit for eviction, the proof of ownership is not to be strictly looked at as in a suit for declaration of title.”
- On the tenant’s challenge to the landlord’s title, the Court said:
“The dispute regarding the title of Ramji Das could not have been raised by the tenant who had come into the premises by virtue of a deed executed by Ramji Das to whom, for more than half a century, the tenants were also paying rent.”
- Regarding tenancy vs ownership: the Court emphasised that if someone enters with the landlord’s permission (i.e., as tenant), the doctrine of adverse possession (which allows someone to become owner by hostile occupancy for a period) does not apply. (This is implicit in the reasoning.)
- The Court affirmed eviction and rent recovery: The tenants must pay arrears from January 2000; they were given 6 months’ time to vacate, subject to an undertaking.
Why Does This Matter?
- Long occupancy under a rent/lease agreement does not convert into ownership simply due to duration.
- A tenant who has continued paying rent to the landlord (or their estate) is effectively acknowledging the landlord’s title; they cannot later turn around and claim they are owners.
- For landlords, this gives more confidence that their title is protected from long-stay tenant claims (so long as tenancy and landlord title are properly managed).
- For tenants, this is a caution: if you are holding as tenant (paying rent, using the property with permission) you cannot assume ownership will follow.
Implications for Plots in Lucknow and Similar Properties
Although the case deals with a shop tenancy, the principle applies equally to plots in Lucknow, flats, houses, commercial-premises, etc., configured as tenancy (rent/lease) relationships. Here are practical take-aways:
- If someone rents a plot (or building) in Lucknow under an agreement with the owner, occupying the plot for 10, 20, 30 or more years does not automatically make them the owner.
- Owners of plots in Lucknow should ensure proper rent/lease agreements, maintain records of rent receipt, and register or formalise tenancy/lease if required. This safeguards their ownership rights.
- Tenants of plots should know: If you wish to become owner you must purchase or receive transfer of title; simply living or using the land for long is not enough.
- Disputes function similarly across India: duration of stay is a factor only if occupancy is hostile (without owner’s permission) for statutory period under adverse possession – not if tenancy was with permission.
- In Lucknow’s real-estate market, where many older tenants may have occupied for decades, this judgment offers clarity: property-owners can assert rights; tenants must not assume automatic title by long stay.
Why This Judgment Is a Turning Point
- It reverses earlier ambiguous practice where long‐term tenants claimed title by sheer occupation.
- It gives a clear rule: tenancy = permission; for ownership by adverse possession you need hostile, continuous, open possession without the landlord’s consent.
- It strengthens eviction and rent-recovery law for landlords.
- It offers simple guidance for everyday property disputes in places like Lucknow.
- It helps streamline litigation: lower courts will refer to this clear precedent when deciding tenant vs landlord cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court decision in Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal is highly important for anyone dealing with landlord-tenant disputes, especially where long-term occupation is at issue.
For landlords (including those holding plots in Lucknow), it means you are better protected so long as the tenancy was legitimate and you maintain your title and rent records. For tenants, it reminds you that long residence does not confer ownership unless formal transfer happens.
In simple terms: Living in a property for years doesn’t make you the owner if you were there with the owner’s permission as a tenant.