SC grants 75-year-old monk four years to vacate Babulnath Temple in Mumbai

The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court’s eviction order , directing a 75-year-old monk to vacate a portion of Mumbai’s historic Babulnath Temple within four years. The unusually long period was granted in consideration of the monk’s advanced age and his life devoted to religious and spiritual pursuits .

The dispute concerns a small area on the landing of the main staircase of the centuries-old temple in Gamdevi, Mumbai. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal filed by Jagannath Giri , who has been in continuous possession since around 1968. The bench stated, “Nothing has been brought before this court which would warrant interference with the well-reasoned and concurrent finding of facts and law by the Small Causes Court and the appellate bench, nor with the order passed by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.”

The contested portion was originally given to Baba Ramgiri Maharaj in 1927. After his death, his disciple Baba Brahmanandji Maharaj continued as tenant, and upon his death, Jagannath Giri was appointed as the legal heir. The Small Causes Court in Mumbai had decreed the eviction in 1996, and the appellate bench dismissed the subsequent appeal in 2001. The High Court later declined to interfere, noting its limited supervisory jurisdiction.

Acknowledging Giri’s age and spiritual life, the Supreme Court said, “We are inclined to grant a period of four years to the petitioner before he hands over vacant possession of the said premise … so as to enable the petitioner to secure alternative accommodation.” The bench added that the monk must stay peacefully and avoid obstructing temple development, while the temple authorities must ensure no third party occupies the contested area or causes any disturbance.

Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, representing Giri, emphasized the petitioner’s decades of continuous possession and religious commitments. The temple trust argued that the premises belong to the temple and must be restored to allow proper maintenance and development.

Legal experts note that the case underscores the tension between historic religious sites , community practices, and modern property law , highlighting that long-term occupation does not automatically confer ownership, especially in trust-managed properties.