Back
1996 Supreme(All) 1103
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.N. Aggarwal, J.
Thakur Charnar Bindu Yogal Jodi Shri Gokul Nathiji - Appellants
Versus
IIIrd Addl District Judge Mathura - Respondents
Decided on : Oct 01, 1996
Advocate appeared:
Janardan Sahai,
A deity's property can be utilized for a charitable object that benefits the worshippers, even in the absence of a specific trust deed.
Headnote:
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21 (1) (A) - DEITY'S PROPERTY - RELEASE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE - ABSENCE OF TRUST DEED - INTERPRETATION - HELD, PROPERTY ENDOWED TO A DEITY CAN BE UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE OBJECT AS IT IS BENEFICIAL FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THE WORSHIPPERS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash an order rejecting their application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for release of shops owned by a deity for opening a charitable hospital in the name of the deity.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the property endowed to a deity can be utilized for a charitable object as it is beneficial for the well-being of the worshippers, even in the absence of a trust deed enumerating the benefits.
Issues: Whether a property endowed to a deity can be released for charitable purpose in the absence of any trust deed providing for opening a charitable hospital.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act in light of the Hindu Law concept of debutter property, holding that the beneficial enjoyment of the property lies with the worshippers and an application can be filed for an object that is beneficial to them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order rejecting the application, and remitted the case to the Prescribed Authority to record a finding on the bona fide requirement of the petitioners.
SUDHIR Narain, J.
1. The petitioners seek writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22-1-1994, passed by respondent No. 1, allowing the appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority and rejecting their application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act' ).
2. PETITIONER No. 1 is the deity known as Thakur Charnar Bindu Yogal Jodi Shri Gokul Nathji Mahraj. PETITIONER No. 2 is its Shebait. The deity is the owner of Shops No. 8 and 9 situate in Ballabh Niwas, Jamuna Bridge, Mathura. Respondent No. 3 is the tenant of these shops. An application was filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act by the petitioners of the allegation that the shops were required for opening a charitable hospital in the name of Thakurji which was to be managed by petitioner No. 2, who is an Ayurveda Vaidya duly registered. It was stated that the father of respondent No. 3 was a tenant and after his death, his son, respondent No. 3, joined service and does not require the shop in question.
Respondent No. 3 contested the application alleging that the property did not belong to a public trust and could not be released for a purpose for which there is no trust deed. The need, as set up by the petitioners, was denied. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application by the order dated 19-12- 1992 on the finding that the shop in question was required for opening a charitable hospital and on consideration of the hardship of respondent No. 3, it was found that he had retired from service and he failed to prove that he was carrying on any business in the shop in question after his retirement. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against this order. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the appeal vide order dated 22-1-1994 holding that the application for opening a charitable hospital was not maintainable under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act as there was no trust deed in regard to the property in question providing for using the property for charitable purpose and the deity cannot be said to require the building for business purposes.
3. SECTION 21 (1) (a) of the Act contemplates release of a building for occupation by the landlord himself or his family member or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purpose or for purpose of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust. SECTION 21 (1) (a) reads as under:
"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 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 is bona fide required either in the existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purpose 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;
4. SECTION 21 (1) (a) of the Act is in two parts, one, when there is personal requirement of landlord either for residential purpose or business purpose and second, when the requirement is for the trust. Admittedly there is no trust deed. The requirement of accommodation is for the purpose of the deity which is covered by the first part of the SECTION. The question arises as to whether a property endowed to a deity can be released for charitable purpose in the absence of any trust deed providing for opening a charitable hospital.
A deity under Hindu Law is a juristic person but the concept has never been regarded a deity as a sentient being. Various concepts which are applicable to a human being cannot be ascribed to a deity which is considered as a Divine Being. B. K. M
