New Delhi, Feb 15 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has rejected a special leave petition (SLP) submitted by the legal heir of a priest who contested the ongoing eviction orders concerning a part of the historic Babulnath Temple in Mumbai. However, in recognition of his advanced age and religious commitments, the court has allowed him a four-year period to vacate the premises.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh refused to challenge the decisions made by the Small Causes Court, the Appellate Bench, and the Bombay High Court, all of which had supported the eviction order in favor of the Babulnath Temple Trust.

The petitioner, Jagannath Giri, is the legal heir and representative of the original defendant, Baba Brahmanandji Maharaj, who had been granted permission to occupy a section of the temple premises adjacent to the main staircase since approximately 1968.

This area was initially leased in 1927 to Baba Ramgiri Maharaj, whose disciple, Brahmanandji Maharaj, retained possession following his death, thereby ensuring continuous occupancy tied to the religious heritage.

After Brahmanandji Maharaj passed away during the ongoing legal proceedings, Jagannath Giri was included as his legal successor and continued to occupy the premises.

The Trustee of the Babulnath Temple Trust initiated legal action in the Small Causes Court in Mumbai to seek eviction of the occupant and regain possession of the premises.

The court ruled in favor of the Trust on October 18, 1996, ordering the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the premises, thereby affirming the Trust's ownership rights.

The Appellate Bench subsequently upheld the trial court's decision on June 22, 2001, affirming the findings and conclusions.

The Bombay High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, opted not to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the writ petition on November 6, 2025.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the Bombay High Court had “correctly stated that it cannot reassess evidence” while exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and that such authority is “primarily for ensuring that the lower courts’ orders remain within legal boundaries.”

While dismissing the plea, the Justice Karol-led Bench stated: “Nothing has been presented to us that would justify interference with the thoroughly reasoned and consistent findings of fact and law by the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench, nor with the order issued by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, thus leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.”

Nevertheless, adopting a compassionate and humanitarian approach, the Supreme Court offered relief regarding the timeline for vacating the premises.

“Despite the dismissal of the petition, considering that the defendant and his successor/petitioner have been in continuous possession of this portion of the temple since around 1968 and have been paying rent regularly… we are inclined to allow a four-year period for the petitioner before he relinquishes vacant possession,” the Justice Karol-led Bench remarked.

The apex court also acknowledged the assertion that the petitioner is “in the autumn of his life, being over 75 years old, who has renounced worldly ties and has occupied these premises purely in the pursuit of a religious and spiritual existence.”

While allowing him to remain peacefully in possession during this timeframe, the top court emphasized that he “shall not obstruct any development of the temple premises.”

Furthermore, it instructed the temple authorities to “ensure that no third party or individual is permitted to occupy the area currently utilized by the petitioner, nor cause him any disturbance,” thus preserving the status quo until the conclusion of the four-year period.