Thank you Ms Archana for the clarification.
To add further, I should say that the "tenant" has not being paying rent for this 12 year period, nor did the landlord make any attempt to collect it. So the "tenant" entered the property as a tenant, although he is not in practice a tenant since he is not paying rent.
As I understand the law of adverse possession, nobody can sue for it, but simply use it in their defense if sued for possession of property by the holder of the title.
How would the courts assess "adversity" in this instance, seeing as the person who entered the property as tenant has done no more than passively enjoy it in the absence of the landlord? Does the court automatically side with the occupier because he did not pay, and the landlord did not collect, rent?
Thanks again for your help.