RAJKUMARI VYAS Vs. BRIJNANDAN AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 04/11/2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Datia, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 24A/1999, as well as judgment and decree dtd. 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.40.00. 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, 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 dtd. 16/07/1982, and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside by the High Court by judgment and decree dtd. 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 Sec. 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 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.