Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has directed a disciple of an ascetic to vacate the portion he occupies on the staircase landing of the Babulnath Temple, famous Shiva temple in Mumbai, ruling that the space is not “premises capable of being let” under the Bombay Rent Act.
Justice Milind Sathaye, on November 6, dismissed a petition filed by Dharamgiri Maharaj – legal heir of the late Baba Brahmanandji – who had challenged concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Court.
The HC held that the area in question, a mid-landing on the temple’s main staircase, is an open passage used by devotees and cannot be treated as a tenanted property.
Temple Trust Filed Case After Revoking Permission in 1977
The dispute dates back to 1977, when the Babulnath Temple Trust filed a suit against Baba Brahmanandji after revoking permission granted to his guru, Baba Ramgiriji, to use the space.
The Trust alleged that after Ramgiriji’s death in 1968, Brahmanandji continued to occupy the landing despite repeated notices. The Trust contended that the space was not enclosed and was accessible to all visitors, making it unsuitable for tenancy.
Petitioner Claimed Tenancy Based on Rent Receipts
In his defence, the ascetic claimed tenancy rights, asserting that rent receipts had been issued in his guru’s name and that electricity charges were also being paid. His disciple, Dharamgiri, later adopted the same stand after being added to the case as a legal heir.
Counsel for the petitioner, Satyavan Vaishnav, argued that “the series of rent receipts issued by the Trust clearly establish the existence of tenancy”, and contended that the guru–chela relationship among ascetics is equivalent to a family relationship under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, allowing tenancy rights to devolve upon the disciple.
Temple Trust Contended Space Was Public Passage
However, opposing the plea, temple trusts’s counsel, Pradeep Thorat, maintained that the portion was “a passage open on two sides, accessible to all devotees,” and therefore incapable of being let out. He argued that the alleged rent receipts were not independently proved and that the term ‘rent’ on printed forms was not conclusive of tenancy.
HC Upholds Eviction Orders; No Protection Under Rent Act
Justice Sathaye upheld the lower courts’ findings, observing, “By no stretch of imagination can the suit premises be called a room. Being less than a room, no protection under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act can be given.”
The court added that the portion “is part of the staircase constructed for devotees to approach the temple, and not premises capable of being let”.
Also Watch:
Court Directs Vacating Within Six Weeks
Dismissing the writ petition, the HC vacated the interim relief and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the area to the Babulnath Temple Trust within six weeks.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
