|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Article Published in the Express Magazine Dated
December 02,
2001
General Attorney : Rajiv K. Luthra
I have been living in a rented house and have
been paying rent (for the same) for about 35 years
now. Now that I have stayed in the house for so
many years, does the house belong to me?
Ronu Ghosh, Delhi
No, you have not become the owner of the house
only because of the fact that you have been living
in the house for about 35 years and paying rent
there. A lease is defined in the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 in Section 105 as a transfer of
a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain
time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in
consideration of a price paid or promised, or of
money to be rendered periodically or on specified
occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who
accepts the transfer on such terms. As long as
these conditions are given, the lease continues
and it may not give a right of ownership in the
premises by mere lapse of time unless the parties
otherwise agree.A non-owner may acquire a right or
title of immovable property after a lapse of
certain time through principles such as adverse
possession. The right out of an adverse possession
is essentially given, if hostile possession, which
must be actual, visible and exclusive, continues
for over a period of at least 12 years. But a mere
undisturbed possession of land for any length of
time can never convey the impression that the
possession is adverse. Once the possession is
permissive, like in a lease agreement, the mere
fact that a long time has elapsed does not convert
this permissive possession into adverse
possession.
A person who had lawfully comes into possession of
land as tenant cannot during the continuance of
such relation, by setting up any title adverse to
that of the landlord, inconsistent with the real
legal relation between them, however notoriously
and to the knowledge of the landlord, acquire, by
the operation of the Law of Limitation, a title as
owner or any other title, inconsistent with that
under which he was let into possession.
Can the citizenship of our country be claimed
as a fundamental right?
S. C. Rao, Kurukshetra
Citizenship itself is not a fundamental right,
guaranteed by the Constitution of India and is
subject to legislative competence of Parliament
under Article 11. Although the citizens of India
are guaranteed the fundamental rights specified in
the Constitution, the status of citizenship on
which the existence or continuance of some of the
said rights rests is itself not one of the
fundamental rights guaranteed to anyone. The
scheme of relevant Articles of Part II of the
Constitution, which deals with citizenship,
clearly suggests that a statute made by Parliament
in exercise of its legislative powers can
adversely affect the status of citizenship. The
provisions of the Constitution, particularly,
Articles 5 to 9 thereof determine as to who are
Indian citizens at the commencement thereof and
Article 10 provides for the continuance of such
citizenship subject to the provisions of any law
that may be made by the Parliament. But, there is
nothing in the Constitution to specifically deal
with the cases of acquisition of citizenship after
the commencement or the termination of citizenship
or other matters relating to the citizenship,
which matters are left to the law makers under
Article 11 by virtue of Parliament legislation.
Hence, the Citizenship Act, 1955 has been enacted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
