Summary: This blog explains a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Jyoti Sharma vs. Vishnu Goyal, clarifying that tenants can never become property owners through long occupation. It highlights how the judgement strengthens landlords’ rights, ends false ownership claims, and brings clarity to tenant-landlord relationship in India.
Introduction
In a landmark judgement that has sent ripples through India’s real estate landscape, the Supreme Court (SC) has categorically ruled that a tenant can never become the owner of a rented property, regardless of how long they may have occupied it. The ruling came in the case of Jyoti Sharma vs. Vishnu Goyal, where the SC comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice K Vinod Chandran delivered a decisive verdict protecting landlords’ ownership rights.
The Core Principle
The Supreme Court Bench has made it abundantly clear that tenants, whether they have stayed for five years or fifty, cannot claim ownership of rented property through adverse possession. The Supreme Court stated: “A tenant occupies the property only with the permission of the owner; therefore, the rule of adverse possession does not apply”[1].
Understanding Adverse Possession
Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows a person to claim ownership of property if they have possessed it openly, continuously, hostilely (against the rights of the true owner), and exclusively for a statutory period, typically 12 years in India. However, the Supreme Court’s crucial observation was that a tenant’s entry and continued stay are based on the owner’s consent, making the possession “permissive” and not “hostile” or “adverse”[2].
The Case Background
The litigation arose from a seven-decade-old landlord-tenant dispute that began in 1953. The plaintiff, the daughter-in-law of the late landlord Ramji Das, claimed ownership based on a Will and sought eviction on grounds of bona fide need to expand her family’s sweets and savouries business. The defendants, sons of the original tenant, disputed her title, but the Supreme Court found their claims to be without merit.
Legal Implications
The Court observed that tenants cannot claim adverse possession against their landlords, since their possession is permissive in nature. The bench stated that “the tenant having come into possession of the tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by the earlier landlord cannot turn around and challenge his ownership”[3].
Impact on Property Rights
This judgment, which many have called a “major victory for property owners”, is expected to stop false ownership claims by long-term tenants and strengthen legal protection for landlords. The ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that lawful title is paramount and protects the rights of the rightful owner against any form of “acquisition by stealth”[4].
This decisive ruling brings much needed clarity to landlord and tenant relationships and reaffirms that contractual agreements cannot be overturned merely due to the passage of time.
For further information, please contact:
Harsha Sudhindra, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
harsha.sudhindra@cyrilshroff.com
[1] Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal (2025) INSC 1099.
[2] Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1986).
[3] Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3827.
[4] Supra 1.
