The landlord of rented property can be held guilty for criminal trespass for entering the property he owns if he does so with criminal intent, while it is under the tenant's lawful possession, ruled the Kerala High Court recently [Damodaran K V State of Kerala].
Justice Jobin Sebastian held that property ownership does not entitle a landlord to forcibly enter premises that are lawfully occupied by a tenant.
"It is well settled that offences such as criminal trespass and house trespass are offences against possession and not against ownership. Therefore, even a true owner cannot, under the guise of ownership, unlawfully enter premises in the lawful possession of another with the intent to commit an offence," the March 26 judgment said.
The Court npassed the ruling while affirming the conviction of a landlord for the offences under Sections 454 (house trespass) and 427 (mischief) under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The case arose from an incident from 2009. The accused landlord had entered a rented room occupied by the complainant (tenant) and thrown out the tenant's household articles, causing damage of around ₹10,000.
The tenant and his wife were not present at the time, but upon returning to the house, they found their belongings vandalised.
During trial, nearby residents testified that they had seen the accused landlord entering the premises and vandalising the room.
The trial court found the landlord guilty of trespass and sentenced him to 1 year imprisonment. On first appeal, a sessions court upheld the landlord's conviction but reduced the jail sentence to 3 months and awarded compensation to the complainant.
The landlord then approached the High Court with a revision petition, challenging his conviction and sentence.
However, the Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower courts. It emphasised that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was limited and cannot be used to reappreciate evidence unless there was a glaring illegality or perversity, which was not found in this case.
Importantly, the Court highlighted that the complainant (tenant) was in lawful possession of the house at the time of the incident. Therefore, any unauthorised entry by the landlord into the said rented premises with criminal intent would attract the offence of house trespass, the Court held.
"In the present case, the mere fact that the accused is the owner of the room does not, ipso facto, absolve him of criminal liability when such entry is effected with the intention to commit an unlawful act. Since the possession of the tenanted room has been clearly established to be with PW1 (tenant), any unauthorised entry into the said room with the requisite criminal intent squarely attracts the offence of house trespass," the Court held.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the landlord's conviction.
However, it took a lenient view on sentencing, opining that imprisonment for 3 months was too harsh for such a case.
It, therefore, modified the sentence, directing the landlord to remain imprisoned till the rising of the Court.
It also directed the landlord to pay ₹15,000 as compensation to the complainant (tenant), failing which he would have to undergo one month's imprisonment.
The landlord was represented by advocates M Sasindran and A Arunkumar.
Public Prosecutor Maya MN appeared for the State.
[Read Order]