A tenant who has occupied a shop or a house for decades sometimes comes to believe that the length of the occupation has made the place theirs. The Supreme Court has rejected that belief in a recent decision, Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal: a tenant cannot claim ownership of the tenanted property by adverse possession against the landlord, however many years the tenancy has run.
The reason lies in what adverse possession requires. A person claiming title in this way must show possession that is open, continuous and hostile to the true owner’s title for the whole of the limitation period, which for immovable property is generally twelve years. A tenant’s possession is not hostile. It exists with the owner’s permission, under the tenancy, and on the footing that rent is paid. Time therefore does not run against the landlord in the way it would against a trespasser.
There is a second rule that points the same way. A tenant is not permitted, while the tenancy continues, to deny that the landlord had title when the tenancy began. This is the rule of estoppel in section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which now appears as section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. A tenant who claims to be the owner is, in effect, denying the landlord’s title, and the law does not allow that while the tenant remains in possession as tenant.
For landlords of old tenancies, the practical point is that length of tenancy does not by itself endanger ownership, but the records matter, because they are what show that possession was permissive: the tenancy document if there is one, rent receipts, and any notices. See Why rent receipts matter. For tenants, long occupation does have value, but it is the protection the tenancy statutes give against arbitrary eviction, such as the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and not a route to ownership. See Tenancy, landlord & tenant.
This note describes the general position only. A person who claims to have held the property in some capacity other than as tenant is in a different position, and the answer then depends on the facts. Nothing here is legal advice.