Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2982
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia, J
Rajkumari Vyas – Appellant
Versus
Brijnandan Agrawal – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL No. 501 of 2003
Jai Prakash Mishra, Smt.Abha Mishra, A.K.Nirankari,Pramod Pachori,Ramkesh Singh
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.
Headnote:(A) M.P. Accommodation Control Act - Sections 12(1)(a) and 13 - Eviction suit for arrears of rent - Landlord-tenant relationship - Pujari as landlord - Suit maintainable despite deity being owner - Rights of Pujari are not proprietary but as manager, yet he can act as landlord if he inducted tenant and received rent.
(B) Hindu Law - Juristic personality of deity - Pujari is a servant or appointee of shebait and cannot claim ownership - However, a Pujari who inducts a tenant and receives rent can be treated as landlord for eviction purposes.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, claiming to be Pujaris and legal representatives of late Chhote Lal Vyas, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from a suit shop on the ground of arrears of rent. The defendant was inducted as tenant by late Chhote Lal Vyas in 1980, paid rent until 1982, and thereafter defaulted. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had not established landlord-tenant relationship as the deity was the true owner. The appellate court affirmed this decision.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiffs, as legal representatives of the deceased Pujari who had inducted the tenant and received rent, become landlords despite the deity being the owner. Consequently, the suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was decreed, and the defendant was directed to hand over vacant possession to the deity through the plaintiffs, who are landlords for the simple reason that their predecessor had received the rent.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs could be considered landlords under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act despite not being the owners, and whether the rights of a Pujari are inheritable for such purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a Pujari who inducts a tenant and receives rent can be treated as a landlord for the purpose of maintaining a suit for eviction under the Act, even if he does not own the property and the deity is the real owner. The rights of a Pujari are not proprietary, but they are sufficient to maintain an eviction suit for arrears of rent.
Result: Appeal allowed; the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit for eviction was decreed with a direction for possession to be handed over to the deity through the plaintiffs.
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
