Judgment : SUDHIR Narain, J. 1. The petitioners seek writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22-1-1994, passed by respondent No. 1, allowing the appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority and rejecting their application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act' ). 2. PETITIONER No. 1 is the deity known as Thakur Charnar Bindu Yogal Jodi Shri Gokul Nathji Mahraj. PETITIONER No. 2 is its Shebait. The deity is the owner of Shops No. 8 and 9 situate in Ballabh Niwas, Jamuna Bridge, Mathura. Respondent No. 3 is the tenant of these shops. An application was filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act by the petitioners of the allegation that the shops were required for opening a charitable hospital in the name of Thakurji which was to be managed by petitioner No. 2, who is an Ayurveda Vaidya duly registered. It was stated that the father of respondent No. 3 was a tenant and after his death, his son, respondent No. 3, joined service and does not require the shop in question. Respondent No. 3 contested the application alleging that the property did not belong to a public trust and could not be released for a purpose for which there is no trust deed. The need, as set up by the petitioners, was denied. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application by the order dated 19-12- 1992 on the finding that the shop in question was required for opening a charitable hospital and on consideration of the hardship of respondent No. 3, it was found that he had retired from service and he failed to prove that he was carrying on any business in the shop in question after his retirement. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against this order. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the appeal vide order dated 22-1-1994 holding that the application for opening a charitable hospital was not maintainable under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act as there was no trust deed in regard to the property in question providing for using the property for charitable purpose and the deity cannot be said to require the building for business purposes. 3. 3. SECTION 21 (1) (a) of the Act contemplates release of a building for occupation by the landlord himself or his family member or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purpose or for purpose of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust. SECTION 21 (1) (a) reads as under: "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely: (a) That the building is bona fide required either in the existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purpose or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust; 4. SECTION 21 (1) (a) of the Act is in two parts, one, when there is personal requirement of landlord either for residential purpose or business purpose and second, when the requirement is for the trust. Admittedly there is no trust deed. The requirement of accommodation is for the purpose of the deity which is covered by the first part of the SECTION. The question arises as to whether a property endowed to a deity can be released for charitable purpose in the absence of any trust deed providing for opening a charitable hospital. A deity under Hindu Law is a juristic person but the concept has never been regarded a deity as a sentient being. Various concepts which are applicable to a human being cannot be ascribed to a deity which is considered as a Divine Being. B. K. Mukherjee on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust (Chapter I page 13, Fourth Edition) has traced the history of idol worship. In the Vedic times a number of gods were named but they represented the beneficent and radiant powers of nature e. g. sun, air, earth, sky and fire etc. B. K. Mukherjee on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust (Chapter I page 13, Fourth Edition) has traced the history of idol worship. In the Vedic times a number of gods were named but they represented the beneficent and radiant powers of nature e. g. sun, air, earth, sky and fire etc. Their worship was by making offerings to them mainly of clarified butter which was poured on the sacred fire. In this period rituds and sacrifice were prevalent. The next important period was the period of Budhism which came as a protest against the ritualism and sacrifice prescribed in the Vedas. They developed monasteries. In this period there was no place for the worship of images of gods but the Budhist paid respect to relics and sacred structures and later image of Budha himself. This paved the way for image worship in India. The image worship was developed as a symbol of the one Supreme Being. The devotee attributed to the idol all functions of creation, preservation as well as destruction and it is the worshipper who was the main beneficiary of idol worship. 5. DR. P. V. Kane in History of Dharmshastra traced the origin of image worship. He discussed three principal views (1) that the worship of images was) derived from Sudras and DRavidian tribes and absorbed in Brahminicai cult; (2) that the making of images was copied from the Budhists; (3) that the practice was a natural and spontaneous growth. He did act agree with the view that the images of gods originally came to be made in imitation of images or statutes of Buddha, as temples and images of gods had become widespread throughout India in the fourth or fifth century B. C. According to him when Vedic Sacrifices became less and less owing to various causes, particularly because of the doctrine of Ahinsa, various Upasanas and the Philosophy of the Absolute set forth in the Upanishads there arose the cult of the worship of images. Originally it was not so universal or elaborate as it became in the medieval and modern times [history of Dharmshastra, Vol. 2 Part 2, Chapter 9, pages 711-712, Second Edition]. 6. THE image of God was taken as a symbol for one Supreme Spirit which helps ordinary people to concentrate their mind to the Godhood to the exclusion of other external and engrossing objects and pursuits. 2 Part 2, Chapter 9, pages 711-712, Second Edition]. 6. THE image of God was taken as a symbol for one Supreme Spirit which helps ordinary people to concentrate their mind to the Godhood to the exclusion of other external and engrossing objects and pursuits. THE worship of God was in two ways namely, without any outward symbol and with a symbol. But even image worshippers were quite conscious that God is pure consciousness, is one without a second, is without parts and without a physical body, and they were worshipping the Supreme Court and not the images made of clay, stone, or any metal etc. He quoted Raghunandan from his work 'deo Pratishtha Tatwa. ': xxxxx "it is for the benefit of the worshippers that there is conception of images of Supreme Being which is bodiless, has no attribute, which consists of pure spirit and has got no second. THE various concepts relating to a person namely, birth, ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property and the origin and birth of a sentient being cannot be attributed to an idol which according to she Hindu concept manifests himself as Divine being. In Bhupati Nath v. Ram Lal, ILR 37 Calcutta 128, the question before the Full Bench was whether dedication to an idol which was then not in existence was valid. It was held that a Hindu deity is in the contemplation of Hindus and is always in existence and consecration of Hindus and is always in existence and consecration of a visible image is merely a physical manifestation. The dedication of the property to a deity, even if was not installed, was valid. 7. THE above view was accepted by the Supreme Court in Mahant Ram Swaroop Das Ji v. S. P. Shahi, AIR 1959 SC 951 , wherein it was observed that even if the idol is broken or is lost or stolen, another image may be consecrated and it cannot be said that the original object has ceased to exist. THE concept of image worship invites the philosophy of Upanishads that the image reflects the Divine spirit which is Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. It is neither mud nor clay, but it is the Divine spirit which is relevant. THE space in a jug and the sky are the same and reflect the same one entity. THE concept of image worship invites the philosophy of Upanishads that the image reflects the Divine spirit which is Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. It is neither mud nor clay, but it is the Divine spirit which is relevant. THE space in a jug and the sky are the same and reflect the same one entity. THE Gita describes the Divine Being in the following verse : xxxxxx With his hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths every where, with ears everywhere, he dwells in the world enveloping all. THE Divine being sees everything as his eyes are everywhere. He hears everyone, spoken or unspoken, reaches everywhere through His thousands of legs, helps every one through His thousands of arms. If a devotee looks at His eyes, feels that Divine being is looking at him, looks to the ears, feels he is being heard, looks to the legs, feels He has come to help him, looks to the arms, feels He is bestowing boons on him. A man wants to touch, feel, know the Divine spirit through senses and mind conceptually tries to comprehend that Divine Spirit. He wants communication with that Supreme Spirit for the fulfilment of his hopes and aspirations. He finds satisfaction immediately on concentration of his mind on the image in front of him. It is concentration in the Divine. It is communion with the God. It is voice from personal to Impersonal. It is movement from gross to subtilty. 8. IN Commissioner of INcome Tax, Calcutta v. Jogendra Nath and another, AIR 1965 Cal. 570 , Lalk, J. held that the deity can never be an 'individual' in the sense of a human being. It was pointed out as under : "if we boil down all the philosophies and scrutinise them we will find that God is beyond all touch, beyond all form, beyond all taste and beyond all law. He works through all hands, sees through all eyes, walks on all feet, breathes through all bodies, lives in all life, speaks through every mouth and thinks through every brain. He is the life of all the sons of the past. God is universal. Thus the deity can never be an 'individual,' under the Hindu concept. He works through all hands, sees through all eyes, walks on all feet, breathes through all bodies, lives in all life, speaks through every mouth and thinks through every brain. He is the life of all the sons of the past. God is universal. Thus the deity can never be an 'individual,' under the Hindu concept. " The God who is considered as unborn is taken as born on consecration of an idol, the God who is Omnipresent is taken as residing at one place of the temple. God who is the owner of everything in the Universe is taken to have been endowed with a property and the concept of ownership and possession is attributed to the deity. The God does not enjoy the property but it is enjoyed by the worshippers as they are the beneficiaries on worshiping such deity. The deity is the owner of the property in a figurative sense. In Bhupati Nath 's case (supra) it was elaborately considered that though idol is frequently described as juridical person and even is owning property but it is only in an ideal sense that property can be said to belong to an idol. It was further explained in Hindi Religious Endowment in Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v. Parasram Veeraghava Chrlu and others, AIR 1937 Mad 750 that the vesting of the property in such personality cannot be taken quite literally. The purpose of making a gift to a temple is not to confer a benefit on the deity but on those who worship the deity. The Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others, AIR 1957 SC 133 , after considering various decisions and Sanskrit texts upheld the view that a deity is an owner in ideal sense but the real beneficiaries are the worshippers. Venkatarama Ayyar J. quoted the Bhashya of Sahara Swami on the Purva Mimansa Adhyaya 9 Para 1 as follows : xxxxxx "words such as 'village of the Gods', 'land of the Gods' are used in a figurative sense. That is property which can be said to belong to a person, which he can make use of as he desires. God however does not make use of the village or lands, according to its desires. Therefore, nobody makes a gift (to Gods ). Wherever property is abandoned for Gods, brings prosperity to those who serve Gods. That is property which can be said to belong to a person, which he can make use of as he desires. God however does not make use of the village or lands, according to its desires. Therefore, nobody makes a gift (to Gods ). Wherever property is abandoned for Gods, brings prosperity to those who serve Gods. " 9. THE commentary of Mednatithi on the expression 'devaswam' in Manu, Chapter XI, verse 26 was quoted : xxxxxx "property of the God, Devaswam, means Whatever is abandoned for Gods, for purposes of sacrifice and the like, because ownership in the primary sense, as showing the relationship between the owner and the property owned, is impossible of application to Gods, for the Gods do not make use of the property according to their desire nor are they seen to act for protecting the same." 10. ON consideration of the various texts it was observed "thus, according to the texts, the Gods Have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaunartha), and the true purpose of a gift of properties to the idol is not to confer any benefit on God, but to acquire spiritual benefit by providing opportunities and facilities for those who desire to worship. " Looking at the provision of Section 21 of the Act, it cannot be literally interpreted in respect of the property of a Deity. The Hindu deity does not carry on any trade, profession or calling. The space for residence is also not required except where the Deity is physically installed. Faced with this difficulty Sapru, J. In Bhagwat Mandir Birajman, Mandir Bhagwati Khurja v. The State of U. P. and other, 1984 (2) ARC 40 extended the meaning of residential purpose of the deity to include requirement of accommodation by the worshippers for Bhajan, Kirtan, Hawan etc., on the principle that the true beneficiaries of the religious endowments are not idols but the worshippers. In Sri Ram Mohan Bajpai v. Vth Addl. District Judge, Kanpurand others, 1980 ARC 279, it was held that the need of the Sarbarakar of a private trust, shall be taken as the need of the deity installed in the temple. In Sri Ram Mohan Bajpai v. Vth Addl. District Judge, Kanpurand others, 1980 ARC 279, it was held that the need of the Sarbarakar of a private trust, shall be taken as the need of the deity installed in the temple. From this point of view an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act has to be considered which is in consonance with the concept of Hindu Law regarding debutter property. 11. THE worshipper may get the benefit in various ways. It depends upon the concept of will being of the worshipper. THE well being is either physical, mental or spiritual. In whatever manner it is beneficial to the worshipper, the same can be taken as a beneficial object of the deity. 12. THE property which is endowed to a deity can be utilised either for bhog, pooja etc. but it can be also utilised for any charitable object as it is beneficial for the well being of the worshippers. It is not necessary that there should be a trust deed enumerating the benefits which can be provided to the worshippers. THE fact that the property vests in the deity, it can be utilised for the benefit of its worshippers. THE concept of the trust is that the property is to be utilised for a purpose for which the trust has been created and the property vests in the trustee for the purpose of utilising such property for the objects of the trust. In case of the debutter property, it vests in the deity but Shebait, mcharge of a temple would be a trustee in the general sense that he is to utilise the property for the beneficial interest of the worshippers, though he is not a trustee in the strict sense as applicable relating to the law governing trust property. An application under Section 21 can be filed when a person requires it for his residence or to carry on his trade or business etc. The deity cannot be said to carry on any business, trade or profession but the beneficial enjoyment is with the worshippers and such beneficial enjoy is their well being and the application can be filed for such an object though the property belongs to a deity. He is primary concern for development of material and spiritual gains. Ailment and aches in the body can be removed by medicine. He is primary concern for development of material and spiritual gains. Ailment and aches in the body can be removed by medicine. In Vishnusahastranama at No. 578 the God has been described as 'bheshjam' (medicine ). Any activity for treatment and distribution of medicine can be taken as object of the deity as it is connected with the well being of worshippers and public at large who are interested in worship of the deity. It is not necessary that there must be in existence a trust deed for using the property for public charitable purpose. 13. RESPONDENT No. 1, after having held that in absence of any trust deed, the application was not maintainable, did not decide the question as to whether the shops in dispute are required for opening a charitable hospital. The version of the petitioners needs investigation on questions of fact. 14. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has informed that after the application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority, the possession of the property in question has been taken over by the petitioners and the hospital is being run. This fact can be ascertained on the basis of evidence. The parties shall be entitled to lead evidence on this aspect. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22-2-1994 is quashed. The case is remitted to respondent No. 1 to record a finding on the bona fide requirement of petitioners. Respondent No. 1 shall dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and the status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of the appeal by respondent No. 1. 15. THE parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.