High court orders eviction of ascetic from Babulnath Temple staircase, says space not protected under Rent Act

The Bombay High Court upheld eviction orders against an ascetic at Babulnath temple, ruling the space isn't protected under the Bombay Rent Act.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has upheld eviction orders against an ascetic occupying a portion of the main staircase at the Babulnath temple, ruling that the space cannot be considered “premises” under the Bombay Rent Act and therefore cannot be claimed as a protected tenancy.

High court orders eviction of ascetic from Babulnath Temple staircase, says space not protected under Rent Act

Justice MM Sathaye dismissed a petition filed by Dharmaraj Maharaj, who had argued that he was a protected tenant of the temple trust. The court directed him to vacate the space within six weeks.

The dispute concerns a small, partially enclosed area on a mid-landing of the staircase leading to the centuries-old Babulnath temple in Gamdevi. The court noted that the structure consisted only of two walls and formed part of a common passage used by devotees. As such, it could not be treated as a room or a unit capable of being let out.

“The suit premises are not ‘premises capable of being let’ and therefore no protection under the Bombay Rent Act can be claimed,” the court observed.

The litigation dates back several decades. According to the petitioner, the space was initially used by a sadhu, Baba Ramgiriji, with permission from the temple trust. After his death in 1968, his disciple, Baba Bramhanandji, continued to occupy the area. In 1976, the temple trust issued an eviction notice to Bramhanandji. In response, his lawyer claimed tenancy rights, asserting that Ramgiriji had been a tenant since before 1930 and that a rent of ₹2 per month had been paid to the trust, along with electricity charges.

The trust subsequently approached the Small Causes Court, which ruled in its favour and ordered eviction in 1996. The appellate court upheld this decision in 2001. Dharmaraj Maharaj, a disciple who took over the litigation following Bramhanandji’s death, then approached the high court.

In its ruling, the high court held that the petitioner could not be recognised as a tenant, as the space was neither a room nor an independent premises. It emphasised that tenancy protection cannot be extended to open or shared areas forming part of a common staircase.

“By no stretch of imagination can the suit premises be called a room. Therefore, being less than a room, no protection under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act can be given,” the court stated.

With the dismissal of his petition, Dharmaraj Maharaj must now vacate the site within the stipulated period.