SHANMUGHAN Vs. PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The owner" of a building situated at Viyyur (Trichur) filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Trichur complaining that his building is in a very dangerous condition and is likely to fall down. Upon the said petition, proceedings have been initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under S. 133 of the Cr. P.C. (for short 'the Code'). He obtained a report from the police in regard to the allegations in the petition. On 20-11-1984 the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a conditional order calling upon the owner of the building as well as the occupants thereof to pull down the entire building immediately and if they object in doing so, they were directed to appear before him to show cause why the order should not be made absolute. One of the occupants, the 2nd respondent herein, filed objections before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, in which among other things, he contended that the owner of the building has been trying to evict the tenants without recourse to the Rent Control Law and that the petition filed by him is only a ruse to throw him out of the building. After taking evidence the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed final orders on 16-5-1986, making the conditional order absolute. The occupants of the building were directed to vacate the premises within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said order to facilitate the owner to pull down the building.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent filed a revision petition before the Sessions court, Trichur. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and hence the owner of the building has filed this Criminal Revision petition challenging the order of the Sessions court.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge, without considering the evidence, took the view that the Sub Divisional Magistrate should not have initiated proceedings under S. 133 of the Code on account of the non obstante clause in S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the above view of the learned Sessions Judge is apparently wrong.