'Even Owner Can't Unlawfully Enter Premises In Another's Lawful Possession': Kerala High Court Upholds Landlord's Guilt In Trespass Case
K. Salma Jennath
31 March 2026 6:00 PM IST
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgement, upheld the finding of guilt of a landlord who had trespassed into his tenant's room and vandalized it.
Justice Jobin Sebastian held:
“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. 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.”
The Court was considering the revision petition filed by a landlord, who was found guilty by the trial court and the appellate court. The prosecution case is that the petitioner/landlord entered into a room taken on rent from him by the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that the landlord committed mischief by flinging out the tenant's household articles, causing damage to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.
The courts below found him guilty of the offences under Sections 454 [Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment] and 427 [Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees] of the IPC. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2000 for the offence under Section 454. The court sentenced him to six months and a fine of Rs. 1000 for the offence under Section 427.
The appellate court modified the sentence to three months for each offence and a direction was passed to pay the tenant a compensation of Rs. 15000. Aggrieved, he filed the present revision petition.
The Court noted that there were independent witness testimonies in the case, which was relied on by the courts below, finding no reason to disbelieve them. It also remarked that upon a careful and holistic reading of the testimonies, the evidence remained consistent and free from material contradictions.
The Court took note of the fact that revisional courts cannot interfere with findings of the court below unless it is suffering from illegality, impropriety, or perversity. Since there were no such grounds to interfere with the finding of guilt, the Court upheld the same.
However, since the genesis of the case was a dispute between the landlord and the tenant and since the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, the Court thought it fit to modify the sentence.
Therefore, the sentence for the offence under Section 454 IPC was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. For the offence under Section 427, the same sentence was given in addition to the compensation of Rs. 15000, payable to the tenant.
The petitioner was also directed to appear before the trial court to undergo the modified sentence. Thus, the petition was allowed in part.
Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 212 of 2026
Case Title: Damodaran K. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
Counsel for the petitioner: M. Sasindran, A. Arunkumar
Counsel for the respondent: MAYA M.N. – Public prosecutor