PORINCHU Vs. SHANMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent is the owner of a storeyed building at Viyyur (Trichur). Different portions of it were occupied by tenants. Though the petitioner says that himself and respondents 2 and 3 are still continuing as tenants, the version of the first respondent is that the petitioner alone is continuing in the building while all others vacated fearing the dangerous condition of the building.

(2.) Alleging that the building is in such a condition necessitating action under S.133(1)(d) of the Cr. P.C. the first respondent moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for action. After the requisite satisfaction the Magistrate initiated proceedings as M.C. 90/84 and passed a conditional order under S.133(1)(d) and issued notice. Petitioner entered appearance and filed objection. After taking evidence the Magistrate passed the final order making the conditional order absolute. That order was challenged by the petitioner in Crl. R.P. 38/86 before the Sessions Judge, Trichur. Revision was allowed and the order was set aside. That order was the subject-matter of Crl.R.P. 423/86 before this court filed by the first respondent. The order of the Sessions Judge was set aside and the case was remanded to the Sessions Judge. By the revised order dt.18-11-1986 the Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition. The present petition was filed under S.482 of the Code for quashing the final order confirmed by the Sessions Judge as an abuse of the process of law.

(3.) Advocate Shri P.V. Ayyappan appearing for the petitioner raised the following three contentions before me and elaborated on those three points. They are: (1) Section 133 of the Code cannot be resorted to in order to do away with the vested rights acquired by others, (2) Criminal Procedure Code is a general procedural law and its provisions cannot have the effect of overriding the provisions of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which is a special legislation relating to leases of buildings and (3) S.133(1)(d) of the Code provides for three alternative remedies, namely, (a) removal, (b) repair or (c) support of the building etc., but the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge without considering the second or third possibilities resorted to the extreme step.