The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court’s order directing eviction of a 75-year-old monk from a portion of Mumbai’s historic Babulnath Temple, while granting him four years’ time to hand over vacant possession in view of his advanced age and religious life.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal filed by Jagannath Giri, holding that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Small Causes Court, the appellate bench, and the High Court.
The Court noted that the trial court had decreed eviction in 1996, the appellate bench dismissed the appeal in 2001, and the Bombay High Court in November 2025 declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
The High Court had observed that its jurisdiction was limited to ensuring that subordinate courts acted within the bounds of law and that it could not re-appreciate evidence.
Agreeing with this approach, the Supreme Court held that nothing had been placed on record to warrant interference with the “well-reasoned and concurrent finding of facts and law” returned by the courts below.
The dispute concerns a small portion on the landing of the main staircase of the Babulnath Temple at Gamdevi, Mumbai.
The premises were originally let out in 1927 to Baba Ramgiri Maharaj. After his demise, his disciple Baba Brahmanandji Maharaj continued in possession as a tenant. Following his death during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court, Jagannath Giri was impleaded as his legal representative and remained in occupation.
The temple trust had filed an eviction suit before the Small Causes Court, which culminated in a decree for possession in its favour.
The appellant relied on continuous possession since around 1968 and payment of rent. However, the Supreme Court held that such possession did not justify interference with the eviction decree once the concurrent findings had gone against him.
While refusing relief on merits, the Court took note of the monk’s age and his renunciatory religious life and granted four years’ time to vacate the premises to enable him to secure alternative accommodation.
The bench directed that during this period:
- the petitioner shall remain in peaceful occupation,
- he shall not obstruct development of the temple premises, and
- the temple authorities shall ensure that no third party is inducted into the portion and that no disturbance is caused to him.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
