CAUSE TITLE:
Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar & Ors. Vs Rajendra Prasad Agarwal & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
06 May 2022
JUDGE(S):
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian
PARTIES:
Appellant(s): SamarpanVarishtha Jan Parisar & Ors.
Respondent(s): Rajendra Prasad Agarwal & Ors.
SUBJECT
The present appeal challenged an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the revision petition filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was allowed and an interim injunction was restored, as granted by the learned Trial Court.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Indian Easements Act, 1882
Section 52 - Licence
The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain adecent amount of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to their fellow inmates who are also senior citizen.
OVERVIEW
- The appellant ran an old age home with rules and regulations. If any rules of the complex were violated by an inmate, the Administration had full right to expel and dismiss their membership.
- An old couple (respondent) filled up an admission form to stay in the old age home. There was a dispute as to whether one of the respondents was a psychiatric patient and misbehaved with the other inmates and staff.
- The Committee held its meeting, the couple asked to be pardoned and ensured that no such complaint would be received in the future. One month was given to observe their behaviour.
- Since no behavioural change was visible, the appellant cancelled the membership of the respondents. They filed a suit for injunction before the Civil Court. The trial Court passed an order that the couple should not be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. However, in appeal, the order was vacated by the Court of Additional District Judge. In further revision preferred by the couple, the order was set aside.
- They then filed a counter affidavit before the Supreme Court, demanding an inquiry into the financial irregularities, embezzlement, internal mismanagement of old age home and their miseries, extortion and torture. In a rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellant, the assertions made by the couple had been denied.
ISSUE
- What is the status of the inmates in the old age home; are they licensees or do they have a legal right to remain in the old age home for the rest of their lives?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANTS
- It was stated that the respondents were old-aged parents who had been abandoned by their own children. There were other inmates too but they had no such complaint.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
- It was pointed out that their two daughters visited them. It was the stand of the respondents that they acted as a whistle blower to highlight the financial misappropriations, misdeeds and inhumane attitude.
- It was also pointed out that the Supervisor of the District Social Welfare Department offered an alternative old age home, free of cost to the respondents.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- Law recognises 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. In the present appeal, the Court was concerned with the possession falling in the third category. This Court in a judgment in Associated Hotels of India v. R.N. Kapoor[AIR 1959 SC 1262] held that in case of a licensee, the legal possession continues with the owner and grant of a mere right to do upon the property of another, something which would in the absence of such right be unlawful.
- In the present case, the possession of the respondents in a room of an old age home was that of a licensee permitted to enjoy the possession, but without creating any interest in the property. The appellants found the behaviour of respondents not conducive to the fellow inmates and the staff. On the legal issue, respondents, as licensees had 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 respondents had no legal right to protect their possession without complying with the corresponding obligations, they cannot seek any injunction to restrain the management of the old age home not to dispossess them.
- 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 an old age home. Therefore, one can understand the mental trauma which the parents face in their life but the agony suffered by a parent cannot be a cause of disturbance to the other inmates or to the organisers who have resolved to take care and run the old age home. 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 was at liberty to terminate the license and ask the inmate to vacate the room allotted to them.
CONCLUSION
The appellant shall arrange an alternative old age home for respondents, like one offered by the Social Welfare Department.
The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to depute a para-legal volunteer to visit the old age home and the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority to visit the old age home at least once a month to find out the difficulties being faced by the inmates.
The present appeal was allowed and ad-interim injunction sought by the plaintiffs–respondents was dismissed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
