Pt. Wazir Chand vs Murti Bara Shivala

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This petition for revision is directed against the decision of the Appellate Authority reversing on appeal the decision of the Rent Controller, refusing to order eviction of the tenant. The landlord is the Temple. The premises in dispute are Deorhi (passage), for going out of or into the Temple. This passage was rented out to the tenant at a time when space around the Temple was lying vacant and people could go into the Temple without making use of the passage. Later on the vacant area has been built, with the result that for the egress and ingress to the Temple the passage is needed. This led to the present petition for eviction of the tenant. The tenant took the pleas that there can be no question of any personal use of accommodation by the Temple, and that the present petition was not filed by any authorised person. These contentions prevailed with the Rent Controller, who rejected the application. On appeal the Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller on both these grounds. This has led to the present petition by the tenant.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that the premises in dispute are residential premises and the tenant cannot be evicted therefrom because they are not required for residential purposes by the Temple. The Appellate Authority has observed :--

The mere fact that the rooms had been constructed over the open space is not sufficient to hold that the passage now in existence is proper and adequate We have to come to the independent conclusion if the passage now in existence is adequate and proper or not. I have already held above that this passage is shabby and insufficient. Secondly, it is open to the temple authorities either to widen the existing passage by getting the rooms on its sides vacated from the occupants or to use the premises in dispute for that purpose. The authorities managing the affairs of the temple have decided to adopt the second course --The entrance to the temple already exists and it is through the premises in dispute and it is also more suitable.

These observations do not really meet the contention that is raised. In the case of residential building, the owner can get it vacated if he requires it for his own occupation. It cannot be disputed that the deity does reside in the temple building and the passage is needed by the deity so that the worshippers can reach the deity without let or hinderance. In this sense, the passage is required for occupation by the deity and, therefore, the case does fall within the ambit of section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. The question that the passage is so required is a question of fact and, therefore, the decision of the Appellate Authority thereon cannot be interfered with in revision.

For the reasons recorded above, I reject the contention of the learned counsel that the decision of the Appellate Authority is erroneous. This petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

The petitioner is granted 3 months'' time to vacate the premises.