New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the legal heir of a priest challenging concurrent eviction orders in respect of a portion of the historic Babulnath Temple in Mumbai, but granted him four years’ time to vacate the premises, taking into account his advanced age and religious life.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh declined to interfere with the findings of the Small Causes Court, the Appellate Bench and the Bombay High Court, all of which had upheld the eviction decree passed in favour of the Babulnath Temple Trust.
The petitioner, Jagannath Giri, is the legal heir and representative of the original defendant Baba Brahmanandji Maharaj, who had been permitted to use a portion of the temple premises located on the landing of the main staircase since around 1968.
The premises were originally let out in 1927 to Baba Ramgiri Maharaj, whose disciple Brahmanandji Maharaj continued in possession after his demise, thereby maintaining uninterrupted occupancy linked to the religious lineage.
Following the latter’s death during the pendency of the legal proceedings, Jagannath Giri was impleaded as his legal representative and continued occupying the premises in that capacity.
The Trustee of the Babulnath Temple Trust had instituted a suit before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai seeking eviction of the occupant and recovery of possession of the premises.
The suit was decreed on October 18, 1996, directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the temple trust, thereby affirming its ownership and right to reclaim the property.
The Appellate Bench subsequently dismissed the appeal on June 22, 2001, upholding the findings and conclusions of the trial court.
The Bombay High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the writ petition on November 6, 2025.
In its order, the Supreme Court observed that the Bombay High Court had “correctly observed that it cannot reappreciate evidence” while exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and that such power is “essentially for ensuring that the orders passed by the courts below remain within the confines of law.”
Dismissing the plea, the Justice Karol-led Bench observed: “Nothing has been brought before us which would warrant interference with the aforesaid well-reasoned and concurrent finding of the facts and law by the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench, nor with the order passed by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”
However, taking a compassionate and humanitarian view of the matter, the Supreme Court granted relief in terms of time to vacate the premises.
“Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, taking into consideration the fact that the defendant and his successor/petitioner had been in continuous possession of the aforesaid portion of the temple since about 1968, and had been paying rent regularly… we are inclined to grant a period of four years to the petitioner before he hands over vacant possession,” the Justice Karol-led Bench said.
The apex court also recorded the submission that the petitioner is “in the autumn of his life being more than 75 years who has renounced the world and had been in occupation of the said premises of the temple purely leading a religious and spiritual life.”
While permitting him to remain in peaceful possession during this period, the top court made it clear that he “shall not cause any obstruction in the development of the temple premises.”
It further directed that the temple authorities “will also ensure that no third party or any other person is allowed to occupy the place being used by the petitioner nor cause any disturbance to him,” thereby maintaining the status quo until the expiry of the four-year period.
(IANS)
