A Pujari who has inducted a tenant and received rent can be treated as a landlord under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, and can maintain an eviction suit for arrears of rent, even though the deity is the true owner of the property.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the

judgment and decree dated 04/11/2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Datia,

in Regular Civil Appeal No. 24A/1999, as well as judgment and decree dated

30/07/1999 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Datia, in Civil Suit No.

29A/1997.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that

plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for eviction on the ground that they are the owners

and in possession of one suit shop situated in Bal Hanuman Ji Ka Mandir, near

Head Post Office, Datia. It was claimed that temple is the private property of

plaintiffs and it has three shops including the disputed shop as well as two more

shops. The suit shop was let out to defendant/respondent No. 1 on 01/05/1980 on

monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. It was let out for a period of ten months by late Shri

Chhote Lal Vyas, husband of plaintiff No. 1, and a rent note was also executed by

defendant in favour of late Shri Chhote Lal Vyas. It is the case of plaintiffs that

defendant had paid the rent for the last time on 05/07/1982 to Chhote Lal Vyas,

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ALOK KUMAR

Signing time: 03-02-2026

05:47:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4289

2 SA-501-2003

and thereafter, despite notice and verbal requests, the rent has not been paid. It is

the case of plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit shop in the capacity of

Pujari. Some persons were claiming that temple is a public temple, therefore,

Chhote Lal Vyas had filed Civil Suit No. 30A/1982, which was dismissed by

judgment and decree dated 16/07/1982, and the judgment and decree passed by

the Trial Court was set aside by the High Court by judgment and decree dated

12/11/1992 passed in Second Appeal No. 164/1983. Therefore, Chhote Lal Vyas

remained Pujari of the temple in question. Chhote Lal Vyas expired on

29/09/1982 and plaintiffs are his legal representatives, and they are Pujari and

Managers, and in that capacity, they are managing the property of temple.

Defendant had filed Civil Suit No. 68A/1995 against plaintiff No. 1 on the ground

that she was intending to illegally dispossess the defendant, which was decreed by

the Trial Court by directing that defendant shall not be dispossessed except in

accordance with law. It was claimed that defendant has not paid the rent from the

month of July, 1982. A notice was also given in the month of July, 1982 in that

regard, and the tenancy was also terminated with effect from 30/06/1997, but

neither the suit shop has been vacated nor the arrears of rent have been paid.

Accordingly, suit was filed for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under

Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act .

3. Defendant filed his written statement and admitted the description of

shop. He claimed that Shri Bal Hanuman Ji Maharaj is the owner of the property

in dispute. Deity is a juristic person, and therefore, only the deity has the

jurisdiction to take action, whereas plaintiffs have wrongly projected themselves

to be the owners and landlord. Shri Bal Hanuman Ji Temple is a public temple.

The fact that Chhote Lal Vyas was the Pujari was not denied. The fact that late

Chhote Lal Vyas was the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of other plaintiffs

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ALOK KUMAR

Signing time: 03-02-2026

05:47:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4289

3 SA-501-2003

was also not disputed. Although the shop was taken on rent, but in the rent note, it

was specifically mentioned that owner of the property is Shri Bal Hanuman Ji

Maharaj, and in that rent note, late Shri Chhote Lal Vyas was mentioned as Pujari.

Pujari is a servant and not the owner, therefore, suit filed by plaintiffs is not

maintainable.

4. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed

the suit on the ground that landlord-tenant relationship could not be established by

plaintiffs.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,

appellants preferred an appeal, which too has