X, a landlady inducted Y as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month for two years from 1992. After expiry, tenant continued to occupy and paid rent till 1996. In 1996, X was transferred to Chennai and Y stopped paying rent. No correspondence till 2011. In 2011, X sent legal notice terminating tenancy. Y contends he has become owner by adverse possession for fourteen years without paying rent. Decide.

Governing rule

The suit for possession by a landlord after termination of tenancy is governed by Article 67 of the Limitation Act, which gives twelve years from the date the tenancy is determined. Section 27 also means that if the landlord sleeps on rights long enough after the tenancy ends, the right to recover possession can be extinguished. But until the tenancy is determined, the tenant’s possession is permissive, not adverse.

The law is clear that mere non-payment of rent does not by itself make a tenant’s possession adverse. Something more is needed: an overt act repudiating the tenancy and asserting hostile title to the landlord’s knowledge.

Applying the facts

Here, Y was inducted as tenant in 1992 and paid rent till 1996. That means the relationship of landlord and tenant continued at least up to 1996, and the possession remained referable to the tenancy. X then left for Chennai in 1996, but mere absence of the landlord does not by itself start adverse possession in favour of the tenant.

The crucial fact is that there was no correspondence until 2011, and in 2011 X issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy. On these facts, Y cannot simply say that because he stopped paying rent for fourteen years he became owner by adverse possession. The tenant must show when, how, and by what clear act the possession became hostile to X. That is not satisfied by silence alone.

If Y continued merely as a tenant holding over or as a tenant at sufferance, the case remains within Article 67, and the landlord’s right to sue runs from the date of determination of tenancy. If the tenancy was terminated only in 2011, a suit for possession filed within twelve years thereafter is plainly in time. Y’s plea of adverse possession therefore fails unless he proves a distinct hostile assertion brought home to X long before 2011.

Case law

In Atyam Veerraju v. Pechetti Venkanna, the Supreme Court held that a tenant’s mere continuance in possession and non-payment of rent does not by itself establish adverse possession. In Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar, the Court reiterated that permissive possession cannot become adverse unless there is clear evidence of hostile title. In State Bank of Travancore v. Arvindan Kunju Panicker, the Court treated possession that remains traceable to the original permissive entry as non-adverse unless there is a clear break in character.

The commentary also states that after expiry of the lease, a tenant’s possession becomes adverse only when the tenancy is determined or when there is some other overt act repudiating the tenancy. Mere non-payment of rent is specifically said to be insufficient.

Illustration

Suppose a tenant stays after expiry of lease, pays nothing, but continues to occupy in the same manner and never asserts ownership. That is not adverse possession. By contrast, if the tenant openly denies the landlord’s title, claims the property as owner, and that claim is known to the landlord for twelve years, then adverse possession may arise.

Conclusion

C’s suit is within time, and Y’s plea of adverse possession must be rejected. Y’s possession up to 2011 remained permissive or at best that of a tenant holding over, and mere non-payment of rent after 1996 does not mature into adverse possession. The landlord’s notice in 2011 is the relevant act of termination on the facts given, so a suit founded on that notice is not barred by limitation.