Back
1984 Supreme(All) 231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. N. Sapru, J.
BHAGWATI MANDIR BIRAIMAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 827 Of 1979
Decided On : 04/25/1984
A.K.Yog, J.C.BHARDVAJ, S.N.AGARWAL
The words "residential purposes" in Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, should be interpreted in a broader sense than actual physical residence by a deity, to include all manner of activities by the devotees which necessarily follow the public dedication of a property in favor of a deity, i.e., all religious activities associated with the place where the deity is installed.
Headnote:
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21 (1) (A) - Whether an application under Section 21 (1) (a) for the purposes mentioned in the application, was maintainable at the instance of the deity.
Fact of the Case:
A landlord, a deity, applied for the eviction of a tenant from temple premises under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, on the ground that the accommodation was required for religious activities. The tenant contested the application, alleging that the landlord had converted a portion of the temple accommodation into a shop and that sufficient open space was available for temple activities. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application, but the appellate authority held that the application was not maintainable as the accommodation was not required by the landlord for personal residence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) was maintainable at the instance of the deity. The court interpreted the words "residential purposes" in Section 21 (1) (a) in a broader sense than actual physical residence by a deity, to include all manner of activities by the devotees which necessarily follow the public dedication of a property in favor of a deity, i.e., all religious activities associated with the place where the deity is installed.
Issues: 1. Whether an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was maintainable at the instance of the deity. 2. Whether the accommodation was required by the landlord for residential purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A deity is a juristic person capable of holding property, and the properties endowed for the institution vest in it. 2. The purposes of a Hindu endowment to a deity are for the benefit of the true beneficiaries of the dedication to a deity who are its worshippers. 3. While interpreting Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, the words "residential purposes" will have to be interpreted in a broader sense than actual physical residence by a deity. They should be interpreted in a manner which takes within its sweep all manner of activities by the devotees which necessarily follow the public dedication of a property in favor of a deity, i.e., all religious activities associated with the place where the deity is installed.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority, and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh, treating the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act as maintainable.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition by the landlord and arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the u. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) THE landlord had applied for the eviction of a tenant from the temple premises on the ground that the accommodation in question was required for Hawan, Kirtan, Bhajan etc. which were held in the temple and for which the accommodation has become short because of the growing number of devotees.
( 3 ) THE application was contested by the tenant who alleged that the shebait, Haridesh Chand had converted a portion of the accommodation belonging to the temple into a shop. It was also asserted that sufficient open space was available for the activities of the temple. It way also the case of the tenant that if the application is allowed, he would be deprived both of his business which he carried on in the premises in dispute and also of his residence. It is submitted that a greater hardship would be caused to the tenant by allowing of the application than by its rejection. The tenant also pleaded that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable.
( 4 ) THE Prescribed Authority after considering the respective cases of the parties allowed the application.
( 5 ) THE tenant was aggrieved and preferred an appeal. The appellate authority held that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable as the accommodation was not required by the landlord who was a deity for the landlords personal residence. The appellate authority went on to hold that Haridesh Chand, the shebait, has converted the Baithak into a shop which he was running. It was held by the appellate authority that this accommodation could have been used for the purposes of the temple. It then went on to hold that since the number of worshipers was not known, it was not possible to hold that the building was required for the purpose. It then held that a greater hardship would be caused to the tenant by the grant of the application than by its rejection.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED the landlord has come in writ petition.
( 7 ) THE first and foremost question to be considered in this writ petition is whether an application under Section 21 (1) (a) for the purposes mentioned in the application, was maintainable at the instance of the deity.
( 8 ) SECTION 21, Sub-section (1), Clause (a) of the Act runs as follows :--
"21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant. (1) The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists, namely (a) that the building bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade, or calling or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust for the objects of the trust:"
( 9 ) THE deity is a juristic person and it is not disputed that a deity is installed in Bhagwati mandir.
( 10 ) "building" is defined in Section 3 (i) of the Act which is the definition clause, as residential or non-residential roofed structure. The Mandir would undoubtedly be a residential building as it is the abode of the deity,
( 11 ) SECTION 21 (1) (a) of the act speaks of a building being required by a landlord for occupation either for residential purposes or for the purposes of any profession, trade or calling pr where the landlord is a trustee of a charitable trust for the objects of the trust. A deity was installed and the property was made the property of the deity by means of an endowment deed which is on record.
( 12 ) THE view of the Appellate Authority was that the word
