In a landmark decision that blends religious tradition with stringent property law interpretations, the Bombay High Court has upheld the eviction of a long-standing ascetic from a portion of the iconic Babulnath Temple’s staircase landing. The ruling, delivered by Justice M.M. Sathaye on November 6, 2025, dismisses a writ petition challenging concurrent lower court decrees and clarifies critical distinctions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). The case, spanning nearly five decades, underscores the limits of tenancy protections in sacred spaces and the precarious line between permissive use and legal occupation.
The dispute centers on Jagannath Giri, the legal heir of the late Dharamgiri Maharaj (originally represented by Baba Brahmanandji), who occupied an un-demarcated space on the mid-landing of the temple’s main staircase. The Babulnath Temple Trust, custodians of one of Mumbai’s oldest Shiva shrines, argued that this was mere permissive use, revocable at will. The High Court’s verdict not only enforces eviction but sets a precedent for similar encroachments in religious institutions, emphasizing that not every occupied space qualifies for rent control safeguards.
A Storied Dispute: From 12th-Century Origins to Modern Eviction Battle
The Babulnath Temple, perched on a hillock near Girgaum Chowpatty, traces its roots to the 12th century when King Bhimdev consecrated a Shiva Linga and idols at the site, naming it after the Babul (Acacia) tree under which the self-manifested Linga was discovered. Legends speak of a shepherd’s cow, Kapila, pouring milk over the buried idol, leading goldsmith Panduranga to excavate the sacred spot around 1780, when the first modern temple was built. The current structure, rebuilt in 1890 by Maharaja Sayajirao Gaikwad III of Baroda, stands as a beacon for Shiva devotees, drawing massive crowds during Mahashivratri.
The tenancy saga, however, begins much later, rooted in the temple’s tradition of sheltering ascetics. According to court records, the original occupant, Baba Ramgiriji—a revered ascetic and spiritual guide—gained permission from the Trust to use the staircase landing sometime before 1930. This un-enclosed space, described in pleadings as a “Darwajawali room” in early rent bills, served as a modest abode for Ramgiriji, who paid a nominal Rs. 2 monthly rent, as evidenced by receipts from 1927 to 1967. An electric sub-meter was installed, and the Trust continued issuing receipts in Ramgiriji’s name even after his death in 1968.
Upon Ramgiriji’s passing, his disciple, Baba Brahmanandji (the original defendant), assumed occupation, performing funeral rites in the space and continuing payments. Brahmanandji’s chela (disciple), Dharamgiri Maharaj, followed suit, maintaining the guru-shishya lineage. Dharamgiri, who passed away during the writ petition’s pendency, was represented by Jagannath Giri, his own chela, residing at the temple’s staircase landing.
Tensions escalated in 1976 when the Trust, amid growing devotee footfall, revoked permission via a lawyer’s notice, citing the space’s non-exclusive nature. Brahmanandji countered, asserting tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act. Undeterred, the Trust issued a second notice in 1977, leading to L.E. Suit No. 256 of 1977 in the Presidency Small Causes Court. The suit sought vacation under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882, framing the occupant as a gratuitous licensee rather than a tenant.
The Trial Court decreed eviction on October 18, 1996, finding the space incapable of being let. The Appellate Bench upheld this on June 22, 2001, prompting the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, admitted with a stay on September 17, 2001. For over two decades, the case languished, symbolizing the interplay of faith, legacy, and law in Mumbai’s sacred precincts.
Defining ‘Premises’: Staircase Landing Fails the Lettability Test
At the heart of the High Court’s reasoning is a rigorous interpretation of “premises” under Section 5(8) of the Bombay Rent Act, which encompasses buildings or parts thereof “let or intended to be let.” Justice Sathaye ruled that the suit premises—an open, un-demarcated portion of the mid-landing on the temple’s 200-step staircase—does not qualify. Lacking four walls, doors, windows, or amenities like a toilet or water tap, it functions primarily as a passage for devotees, especially during peak hours like Mahashivratri.
The court invoked Section 13(5)(ii), which includes “landings” only as appurtenant to a primary let-out space. Here, no such primary premises existed; the landing stood alone, accessible to all pilgrims. “By no stretch of imagination can it be called a room,” the judgment states, distinguishing it from prior cases like Sh. Lin Kuei Tsan v. Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel (2015), where a shop with a basement toilet qualified. The ruling cites Rukhaminibai Ramvilas Lehoti v. M/s. Murlidhar Govindram (1985) to affirm that open, non-exclusive spaces in religious structures evade rent control, prioritizing the temple’s devotional purpose over individual claims.
Tenancy vs. License: Permission Revoked, No Exclusive Rights Granted
The judgment draws a sharp line between tenancy—a heritable, protected right implying exclusive possession—and license—a revocable permission for use without tenancy implications. The Trust’s initial allowance to Ramgiriji was deemed a gratuitous license, extended out of compassion for ascetics but never evolving into a lease under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Key evidence included admissions from defense witnesses: the space remains open on two sides, with devotees freely crossing a mere “cement line” demarcation during rushes. No lease deed existed, and the 1976-77 notices effectively terminated the license. The court rejected estoppel arguments based on rent receipts, noting they were unproven (introduced only in cross-examination) and likely pertained to an adjacent chawl, not the landing. Citing Dr. H.S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1962), it held that “rent” labels alone do not conjure tenancy without independent proof of landlord-tenant intent.
Under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, which deems certain licensees tenants post-1955, protection was denied as the space was “less than a room” and tenancy unpleaded. Mahibubsaheb Abdul Rahiman Haddiwala v. Siddheshwar Devasthan (1993) reinforced this exclusion for sub-room occupations.
Guru-Chela Bond: Spiritual Kinship, Not Legal Family
The petitioner’s boldest claim—tenancy devolution under Section 5(11)(c), treating chelas as “family members” residing with the tenant at death—was firmly rebuffed. For ascetics like Ramgiriji, Brahmanandji, and Dharamgiri, who shun household possessions, the court held that guru-chela ties, while profound, do not mirror familial tenancy succession.
“Original Defendant and his Guru or Chela being ascetic, are not ordinary persons possessing household articles,” the Trial Court noted, echoed by the High Court. Unlike Shri Rikhu Dev v. Som Dass (1976), where proven tenancy allowed chela inheritance, no baseline tenancy existed here. The lineage—Ramgiriji to Brahmanandji (1968), to Dharamgiri, to Jagannath—thus conferred no legal continuity, rendering the occupation personal and terminable.
Procedural Echoes and Broader Implications
Procedural skirmishes, like the original defendant’s absence from the witness box (invoking adverse inference per Vidyadhar v. Manikrao, 1993) and unproven rent exhibits (Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar v. Raghuvir Sinai Lotlekar, 1984), further eroded the defense. The Trust’s suit authority was upheld, as lower courts weighed evidence holistically.
This verdict ripples beyond Babulnath, cautioning religious trusts against permissive occupations morphing into claims. With Mumbai’s temples facing urban pressures, it reaffirms supervisory limits under Article 227—no re-appreciation of facts, only error correction. The eviction, stayed since 2001, now activates post-six weeks (December 18, 2025), ending a saga where devotion met the law’s unyielding gaze.
