ORDER : Devan Ramachandran, J. The focal issues in this case relate to the use of a residential building constructed by a Trust by name, Sree Subrahmanium Religious Trust (for short, 'the Trust') registered under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act. 2. The history of this litigation goes back to the year 1976, when a licence agreement was entered into by the Travancore Devaswom Board with the Trust, as per which, the latter was allowed to construct a residential building at Sabarimala, in a site lying on the eastern side of the Ryons building, at their request. A copy of this licence agreement is on record as Ext.R1(c) and also as an Annexure to the report of the Special Commissioner, to which we will presently refer. 3. As per the narration of the events in the licence agreement, the Trust had approached the Travancore Devaswom Board with a request to allow them to construct a residential building and that request was considered and approved by the Board taking into account the various philanthropic and charitable activities being engaged in by the Trust at that time. It is also evident from the licence agreement that the permission was granted because in order to ensure effective superintendence and execution of the various works undertaken by the Trust, it was necessary that its officials and members be given a residential accommodation at Sabarimala. This licence agreement is dated 11th of March, 1976, wherein it is specifically provided as under: “1. The Licensee hereby agreed to construct the building as per plan appended to this agreement, on the site allotted for this purpose by the Licensor and which is specifically described in the Schedule. No alteration to the plan will be made without the previous written consent of the Licensor. 2. The entire cost of the construction including the fittings shall be borne by the Licensee. 3. The construction shall be completed within six months of the date of this agreement. 4. The Eastern portion of the building shaded in the plan shall be reserved exclusively for the use of the Licensee. The remaining portion of the building will be rented out by the Licensor, in their discretion. In case the Licensee requires accommodation in this part of the building the Licensor shall arrange such accommodation free of rent for a period not exceeding three days in an year. The remaining portion of the building will be rented out by the Licensor, in their discretion. In case the Licensee requires accommodation in this part of the building the Licensor shall arrange such accommodation free of rent for a period not exceeding three days in an year. If the Licensee requires accommodation for longer periods the Licensor shall in their discretion, arrange such accommodation on rental basis. The Licensee, shall give sufficient notice to the Licensor to get such accommodation. 5. The Licensee hereby agrees to carry out the entire annual maintenance at their cost. The repairs to the Electrical and Sanitary fittings shall be carried out by the Licensor. 6. The building and premises shall belong to the Licensor and shall remain the property of the Licensor. 7. The Electrical connection shall be applied for and obtained in the name of the Licensor. 8. The word Licensor and Licensee shall include successors who come into the respective offices from time to time. 9. In case the licensee winds up their activities or dissolves the Trust, the Licensor shall have the right to take full control of the entire building and premises and to let it out on rent to others.” 4. The above terms of the agreement are called into attention in these proceedings before us. 5. The genesis of these proceedings is that a certain Sri.Abhilash Chandran addressed this Court by a letter alleging that the Trust was using this building for the purpose of accommodating pilgrims of their choice and collecting Rs.500/-per head unauthorisedly and illegally. The essence of the relief sought for by this individual in his letter was that this building be re-possessed by the Devaswom Board and put to use by them appropriately, rather than being allowed under the control of the Trust. 6. When this letter was received by this Court, an order was issued for the conduct of a proper investigation to be done by the Authorities of the Devaswom Vigilance Department and a report from the Special Devaswom Commissioner for Sabarimala was also called for. In pursuance of these orders, it appears that an inspection was caused to be conducted in the premises by the Vigilance Officer of the Devaswom Board and his report was placed before the Special Commissioner. 7. In pursuance of these orders, it appears that an inspection was caused to be conducted in the premises by the Vigilance Officer of the Devaswom Board and his report was placed before the Special Commissioner. 7. As is clear from the said inspection report, a copy of which has been placed before us along with his report by the Special Devaswom Commissioner, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Security had visited the premises and found that there were several pilgrims being accommodated therein under permission granted by the Trust from its office at Thiruvananthapuram. It was also noticed that a register had been maintained in the premises by a care taker, who had recorded therein the details of all such pilgrims, including their names, addresses and their purpose of visit. The Sub Inspector of Police is also seen to have recorded a statement from a certain Sri.Prabhullachandran, who is stated to be the care taker of the premises in question. From the statement of Sri.Prabhullachandran, it becomes luculent that the premises were being put to use to accommodate large numbers of pilgrims chosen by the office of the Trust at Thiruvananthapuram and to whom permission was given by the Trust through letters issued by them. In addition to this, the inspection also revealed that the Trust had constructed certain lean-tos in the said building, thus expanding the area under their control, in violation of the licence agreement. However, it was not possible for the investigator, at least with the limited time and resources at his command, to enter into an affirmative conclusion as to whether the Trust was collecting any amounts from such pilgrims, who were being accommodated in the premises in question. 8. Based on this report, the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, who also made his own enquiries, filed his report before us, dated 13.02.2017, wherein it was affirmed that leantos had been constructed on the eastern, southern and northern portions of the building without any permission being asked for them or granted by the Devaswom Board and that such constructions appeared to be permanent in its nature. The Special Commissioner has also reported unequivocally that approximately 100 pilgrims are lodged regularly in the building and the surrounding lean-tos during the pilgrimage seasons and during when the temple is open for darshan every month. The Special Commissioner has also reported unequivocally that approximately 100 pilgrims are lodged regularly in the building and the surrounding lean-tos during the pilgrimage seasons and during when the temple is open for darshan every month. The Special Commissioner has also recorded in his report that there was no tangible material either in the inspection report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Vigilance or the statement of the care taker, to come to the conclusion that the Trust is collecting any fees from the pilgrims when they are permitted to avail lodging facility. 9. In the background of the afore-factual narration, it becomes incumbent upon us to see whether the Trust has in any manner violated the terms of the agreement in question. 10. As we have already indicated above, the agreement only grants a licence, wherein it is shown without doubt that the building and premises shall always belong to the licensor (meaning the Board) and that it shall remain its property, though the construction was permitted to be done by the licencee (meaning the Trust) for their exclusive residential use. This is particularly pertinent because the second paragraph of the licence agreement opens by saying that the licensee has requested the Board to allow them to construct a residential building at Sabarimala and clause 4 therein adds that the eastern portion of the building shall be “reserved exclusively for the use of the licensee”. This can only inferentially indicate that what was permitted in the licence agreement was that the Trust or its members would be entitled to use the property as residential accommodation, exclusively for their use. 11. Sri.G.Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri.Aneesh Paul appearing on behalf of the Trust opens his submissions by trying to persuade us contrary to our observations recorded above. As per him, there is nothing in the agreement which says that the premises could be used by the Trust only for their exclusive use and that too for residential purposes. As per him, the terms of clause 4 afore-extracted would only show that the eastern portion of the building is reserved exclusively for the use of the Trust. As per him, there is nothing in the agreement which says that the premises could be used by the Trust only for their exclusive use and that too for residential purposes. As per him, the terms of clause 4 afore-extracted would only show that the eastern portion of the building is reserved exclusively for the use of the Trust. This can also mean that the Trust is entitled to allow people of their choice to reside and use the premises under their permission and that this cannot be seen to be in any manner being in violation of the said clause. 12. To add strength to the submissions, the learned senior counsel says that it is obvious that what has been permitted by the licence agreement to his client is to use the designated portion of the building for their exclusive use and that as long as there is no allegation that they have given up their exclusive control over the building they cannot be proceeded against. On the issue that the Trust can use the building only as a residential building is concerned, his submissions are two fold: Firstly, that as long as the premises are being put to use for residential purposes, albeit by other persons under the permission of the Trust, there cannot be any case for anyone to say that the licence agreement has been violated. Secondly, his submission is that since only a portion of the building has been allotted to the exclusive use of the Trust, the rest of it on western side being reserved for the use of the Board, as per the terms of the licence agreement, it clearly indicates that the portion that is exclusively set apart to their use can be used by them for any purpose without further qualification. Sri.G.Sreekumar tries to build upon his submissions by pointing out the second limb of clause 4 of the agreement to say that even if the Trust required accommodation in the western portion of the building, under the control of the Board, then they would have to approach the Board for permission and that they would be liable to pay rent for such use and occupation. In effect, the submission of the learned senior counsel is that the allegations now levelled against them by the Special Commissioner, even if found to be true, would not aid in any manner to conclude that they are in violation of the terms of the agreement. 13. We will answer the specific contentions of the learned senior counsel as above after pointing out one other pertinent issue that has come to our mind. In clause 9 of the agreement in question, which is also extracted afore, it is clearly provided that if the licensee (meaning the Trust) winds up their activities or dissolves the Trust, the licensor (meaning the Board) shall have the right to take full control of the entire building and premises and to let it out to others on rent. The word 'activities' in this clause obviously means the activities undertaken by the Trust in relation to the Sabarimala and nothing else. This is clear from the fact that the clause also talks about the dissolution of the Trust in contradistinction to their “activities”. In other words, even if the Trust is not dissolved, when their activities in Sabarimala ceases, the licensor (the Board) will obtain the contractual right to take full control of the entire building. It is conceded before us, even by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Trust, that they are not engaged in any developmental or construction activities at present at Sabarimala and that the last of their such activities were undertaken by them as early as in the year 2011. He, however, adds that the Trust is engaged in charitable and philanthropic activities in Sabarimala, notwithstanding the fact that they are not presently engaged in civil works, which, according to him, is solely because the Board did not permit them to engage themselves in such activities after 2011, even though they are fully willing and ready to do so even at this point of time. 14. We will now proceed to consider the various contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Trust as recorded above. 15. Contrary to the assertions made on behalf of the Trust, it is obvious, from the terms of the agreement, that what was applied for and requested by the Board in the year 1976 was permission to construct a residential building for their exclusive use. 15. Contrary to the assertions made on behalf of the Trust, it is obvious, from the terms of the agreement, that what was applied for and requested by the Board in the year 1976 was permission to construct a residential building for their exclusive use. This could have only meant that since the Trust was engaged in various construction and other civil developmental activities at Sabarimala, it was necessary for them to have a proper accommodation so as to oversee and supervise such activities. This is pertinent because, in the year 1976, accommodation facilities at Sabarimala was not of the kind as we see today and it was few and far in between. The situation in Sabarimala has now vastly improved and facilities for the pilgrims substantially better. 16. Viewed from that perspective, the licence made it very clear that only the Trust, that is to mean its members or its officials, could have used the premises for their exclusive residential use. However, in contravention of this, what the Trust has now done, even admittedly in their pleadings on record, is to accommodate several pilgrims, some times more than 100 in number, in the premises in question making use of the unauthorisedly constructed lean-tos on the eastern, western and northern sides of the building. Apart from the fact that the very construction of the lean-tos have been done in violation of the agreement, the accommodation of such large number of pilgrims and that too without any permission from the Board being obtained, would certainly amount to be a violation of the specific terms of the contract, which have been extracted above. 17. When we say this, it is not to mean that the construction of the lean-tos is viewed by us any less seriously and on the contrary, the fact that the Trust has constructed such lean-tos would also lead to the inescapable inference that it was intended to accommodate larger numbers in the premises and all such accommodation with the aid of such lean-tos would, therefore, axiomatically become illegal and unlawful. 18. 18. When such unlawful activities have been found and when they are explicitly admitted to by the Trust in their pleadings and by their care taker in his statement, it does not become necessary for us to venture into a factual enquiry or fact finding mission, since none of the facts presented before us are in dispute any more. The admitted and conceded position, as we have seen today, is that lean-tos have been constructed by the Trust unauthorisedly around the building, which enable them to accommodate large number of pilgrims of their choice, which otherwise they could not have done and thus their actions in constructing the lean-tos can, obviously, be seen only as a deliberate attempt to violate the terms of the licence, specially because it is specified in the licence itself that no construction shall be done by the Trust without first obtaining the written permission of the Board. It is admitted that no such permission was obtained or granted and therefore, this fact will cut at the root of the submissions of the learned senior counsel that the construction of the lean-tos is not a serious violation, so as to warrant cancellation of the agreement. 19. Once we conclude that the construction of the lean-tos and the accommodation of pilgrims in large numbers in the premises are in violation of the licence agreement, we are then impelled to consider the nature of the orders that will have to be passed in these proceedings. Even though we are firm in our mind that the very factum of the above violations having been established against the Trust being reason enough to cancel the licence itself, coupled with the fact that, as per clause 9, since the Trust is not engaged in any developmental activities at Sabarimala for the past several years, thus the Board being contractually enabled to take over the building, we choose not to cancel the agreement or the licence granted to the Trust but to modulate its terms suitably, so that the complaints against the Trust that they are in control of the building exclusively around the year can be substantially addressed and allayed. 20. For this purpose, we have analysed an earlier judgment of another Division Bench of this court, in which one of us, Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, was a member. 20. For this purpose, we have analysed an earlier judgment of another Division Bench of this court, in which one of us, Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, was a member. The judgment in question was delivered in W.P.(C) No.36836 of 2008 on 15.10.2009, in the case of another Trust, by name M.N.Nambiar Trust. The facts presented therein is similar to the facts involved herein, that the said Trust had constructed a house with the permission of the Board under a licence agreement that are worded ipsissima verba as the agreement in question in this case. This Court, after consideration of the various factors therein, had initially referred the parties to the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Board, before whom a consensus was reached between them and recorded in the judgment. The terms of the consensus and the permission subsequently granted by this Court to that Trust is available in paragraph 6 of the judgment which reads as under: “6. Since the report is based on the consensus arrived at between the parties, it is only just and appropriate to pass orders based on the recommendations made by the Ombudsman. Accordingly, we order that the petitioners can avail the accommodation facility for 15 days during Mandalam-Makaravilakku season. Out which rent will be paid for 10 days, in the following manner: (i) Three days during Makaravilakku season, (ii) Seven days during Manadalam season. The balance five days will be free of rent, out of which, three days will be during Mandalam season and two days will be during Makaravilakku season. During off season, the petitioners shall be treated alike any other devotee and if accommodation is available, they can be accommodated on payment of usual rent.” 21. We are of the view that even though the learned senior counsel appearing for the Trust tells us that they are not in a position to accede to what has been granted to M.N.Nambiar Trust in the judgment afore, in fairness and in equity and taking into account the services rendered by the Trust in the past and their activities in Sabarimala, in the area of altruism and philanthropism, we deem it appropriate to offer them the benefits granted to M.N.Nambiar Trust as extracted afore and we leave liberty to them to either accept it or reject it as they choose. 22. 22. In the result, we order that the terms of Ext.R1(c) licence agreement shall stand suitably modified adhering to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.36836 of 2008 and specifically to paragraph 6 thereof extracted above and if such a request is made by the Trust to the Board to permit them to use the premises in terms of the directions contained in that judgment, the Board shall consider the same affirmatively and grant them such permission by a written order. 23. We clarify that once such written order is issued by the Board, the terms of that order will continue to operate until further orders are issued by this Court. In other words, the continuance of the Trust in the premises in question will be governed for all other purposes by the licence agreement but their use of the building will be governed by the conditions in paragraph 6 of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.36836 of 2008. This SSCR is thus closed.