The Supreme Court has observed that inmates of an Old Age Home are licensees as per Indian Easements Act and are required to maintain a minimum level of discipline, not creating nuisance to the fellow inmates.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed that the senior citizens have a legal right to stay in the Old Age Homes as long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license.
The challenge in the appeal is to an interim injunction that was restored by the impugned High Court judgement. The appellant was granted lease for running old age home contructed by Municipal Corporation. One of the conditions in the lease was that an Advisory Board shall be constituted by the lessee i.e., the appellant. The appellant framed rules and regulations for grant of services at the old age home. Such rules and regulations contemplated that the cooperation fund deposited by the inmates shall be used for accommodation, food, bed and other essential services of living and general treatment but expensive medical treatment and expenditure was to be borne by the inmates themselves. It also provided that if any rules of the complex are violated by any inmate, the Administration has got full right to expel him and dismiss his membership by issuing him one month period’s notice.
Upon admission of the plaintiffs, dispute arose as to if plaintiff no.2 is a psychiatric patient and misbehaves with the other inmates and staff. In terms of the conditions of the lease, the Committee held its meeting and the stand of the plaintiffs was that if the administration has received any complaint against them, then they may be pardoned and they ensured that no such complaint would be received in the future. It was pointed that in difficult time of old age, the approach of the appellant should be compassionate with due generosity. It was decided by the Committee to allow one month’s more time to the plaintiffs so as to observe their behaviour. If no reforms were visible then, they would be told to leave the premises.
Pursuant to this, the plaintiffs were dispelled and they filed a suit for injunction before the Civil Court, accompanied by an application for ad-interim injunction. The Trial Court ruled that the plaintiffs should not be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. However, in appeal, such order was vacated by the Court of Additional District Judge. In further revision preferred by the plaintiffs, the order was set aside.
The plaintiffs have filed a counter affidavit before the Court, inter alia demanding an inquiry into the financial irregularities, embezzlement, internal mis-management of old age home and their miseries, extortion and torture. It is the stand of the plaintiffsrespondents that they acted as a whistle blower to highlight the financial misappropriations, misdeeds and inhumane attitude. The complaint was made regarding quality of food, facilities or medical treatment, misuse of donated vehicles etc.
The appellant has denied the assertions and submitted that their daughters visit them and have given affidavits that they will act as guardian and will take care of their medical needs. It was also pointed out that the Supervisor of the District Social Welfare Department visited the old age home and offered an alternative old age home of Social Welfare Department free of cost to the plaintiffs.
The Court analysed that the issue raised in the appeal is what is the status of the inmates in the old age home, are they licensee and/or they have a right to stay in the old age home for the lifetime as a matter of right?
It noted at the outset that Law recognizes three types of possession. One as that of an owner, including coowners; 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.
Noting that the present case concerns to the third type of possession, the Court cited Associated Hotels of India Ltd. Vs. R. N. Kapoor, 1959 Latest Caselaw 91 SC wherein it was held that in case of a licensee, the legal possession continues with the owner as in terms of Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, grant of a mere right to do upon the property of another, something which would in the absence of such right be unlawful.
Thus, this is the essential characteristic which distinguishes a license from a lease, the Court clarified.
It mentioned Sohan Lal Naraindas Vs. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit, 1971 Latest Caselaw 8 SC wherein it was held that a lease creates an interest in the property whereas a license creates no estate or interest in the immovable property of the grantor.
The Court went on to mention a slew of judgements including Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu & ANR, 2003 Latest Caselaw 635 SC, Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Others Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.R.S., 2012 Latest Caselaw 186 SC, Behram Tejani & Ors. Vs. Azeem Jagani, 2017 Latest Caselaw 30 SC
In the present case, the Court noted that 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, the Court mentioned adding that it cannot take a judicial review of this aspect, however 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."
Remarking that as a licensee, the plaintiffs have no right to stay in the accommodation allotted which is purely an approach to a human problem faced by the people in old age, the Court said:
"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."
Noting that the injunction granted by the High Court suffers from patent illegality and not warranted in law, the Court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar & Ors. VERSUS Rajendra Prasad Agarwal & Ors.
Case Details: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3520 OF 2022
Coram: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
