Deity sole owner, not pujari, Madhya Pradesh High Court rules in tenant landlord dispute

“It is held that since plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be Pujari, therefore, they would not acquire any right or title in the property and only deity shall be owner of the property,” the court said on February 3.

Any income derived from the property must be devoted or surrendered to the deity, said the Madhya Pradesh High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• It is held that plaintiffs are not the owners of property in dispute and it belongs to deity.
• Since plaintiffs have proved that defendant is in arrears of rent, and he has not paid the rent, therefore, in the light of Sections 12(1)(a) and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, suit is liable to be decreed.
• Sections 12(1)(a) and 13 of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 govern tenant eviction due to rent arrears and provide protection against such eviction.
• Section 12(1)(a) permits eviction if a tenant fails to pay arrears within two months of a demand notice, while Section 13 mandates continuous rent payment during proceedings to avoid eviction.
• The defendant is liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent.
• However, it is held that plaintiffs are not the owners of property in dispute and it belongs to deity.
• The court undertook an extensive examination of the constitutional bench and other landmark rulings of the Supreme Court of India, including the Ram Janmabhoomi judgment and decisions dealing with temple management and priestly rights.
• A pujari is a servant appointed by the shebait or manager. Mere performance of worship, even for several generations, does not confer any independent proprietary right over temple property.
• A shebait is the human custodian, manager, and priest of a Hindu deity (idol) and its dedicated property, known as debuttar property.
• They are responsible for the daily worship (puja), preservation of the temple, and management of the deity’s affairs.
• A shebait differs from a trustee as they hold a proprietary interest in the office, which is often hereditary.
• Since predecessor of plaintiffs had inducted the defendant as tenant and even the rent was paid to late Shri Chhote Lal Vyas, therefore, admittedly, plaintiffs would become landlords.
• A landlord can always maintain a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act.
• It is not the defendant’s case that he had paid the rent to the plaintiff.
• The trial courts were correct in holding that plaintiffs are not the owners of the property.
• However, the courts lost sight of the fact that the defendant was inducted as tenant by late Chhote Lal Vyas, who was functioning as pujari.
• Even the defendant had paid rent to Vyas and after his death, his legal representatives/appellants had become landlords for the purposes of maintaining suit under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.
• Dismissal of suit on that ground that landlord-tenant relationship did not exist between the plaintiffs and defendant was erroneous, and accordingly, the same requires interference.

Decision

• Allowing the appeal, the high court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court and decreed eviction of the tenant for non-payment of rent.
• However, the court was careful to safeguard the religious character of the property.
• It directed that the vacant possession of the shop shall be handed over to the deity through the plaintiffs.
• The plaintiffs shall not deal with the property as owners.
• Any income derived from the property must be devoted or surrendered to the deity.

Background

• The case revolves around a shop located within the premises of Bal Hanuman Ji Ka Mandir, near the head post office at Datia in Madhya Pradesh.
• The plaintiffs claimed that the temple and three attached shops were their private property and that one of the shops had been let out to the defendant on May 1, 1980, at a monthly rent of Rs 40 by late Chhote Lal Vyas.
• According to the plaintiffs, the tenant last paid rent on July 5, 1982, and after that stopped making payments despite repeated requests.
• A notice terminating the tenancy was issued with effect from June 30, 1997, but the shop was neither vacated nor were arrears cleared.
• This prompted the plaintiffs to file a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, citing continuous default in payment of rent.
• Both the trial court, in judgment dated July 30, 1999) and the first appellate court in judgment dated November 4, 2003 accepted the tenant’s arguments and dismissed the eviction suit.
• They held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a valid landlord-tenant relationship since they were not owners of the property.
• Aggrieved by these findings, the plaintiffs approached the high court in a second appeal.

Arguments

• The tenant, while admitting the tenancy, strongly disputed the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership.
• He argued that Shri Bal Hanuman Ji Maharaj, the deity, is the true owner of the property.
• The temple is a public religious institution, the tenant submitted.
• Late Chhote Lal Vyas was only a pujari, not the owner or landlord, he argued.
• He said that a pujari is merely a servant of the deity and cannot maintain an eviction suit in his own right.
• It was also pointed out that the rent note itself described the deity as the owner and mentioned Chhote Lal Vyas only in his capacity as pujari.
• Advocate J P Mishra, appearing for the appellants argued that since the defendant has admitted that the suit shop was taken on rent through late Chhote Lal Vyas.
• The counsel said that the rent was also paid to him, then whether plaintiffs are the owners of the property in dispute or not would not make any difference.
• After having paid rent to the late Chhote Lal Vyas, he had become the landlord, the counsel submitted.
• He added that since plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Chhote Lal Vyas and are still working as pujari, therefore, suit was maintainable.