GHULAM RASOOL RIAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREMISES No. 97/155 situated at Kallumal Street, Beconganj, Kanpur was owned by Sayeed Ahmad and others It was tenanted since 1955 by Ghulam Rasool and others. On October 1, 1967 Shrimati Sayeedan purchased the property for Rs. 25,000/-. It appears that on 13th June 1972 an application was filed by Shrimati Sayeedan before the City Magistrate, Kanpur to the effect that the premises in question was dangerous and requires demolition. The City Magistrate Kanpur passed a conditional order under Section 133 CrPC on 28th June 1972. On 10th July 1972 objections were filed by the applicant and others. Parties led evidence and produced documents in support of their respective claims. On 11-2-1974 the City Magistrate Kanpur passed the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge,, Kanpur which was dismissed on 15th May 1974. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. Both the parties have argued at length. They have also referred to documents on the record. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the recourse to proceedings under Section J33 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code is, in the circumstances of the case, not warranted by law. It is not disputed that the applicant is a tenant of the back portion of the premises in question in which there are several other tenants since 1955. It is also admitted to the parties that Shrimati Sayeedan is the transferee of the property in question which she took by sale on 7th October 1967. Both the parties have filed reports of Engineers which are conflicting with regard to the condition of the building. I find from the impugned order of the Magistrate that he was of the opinion that the condition of the building was not such for which there might be immediate danger. The order of the Magistrate indicates further that two mansoons have passed since June 1972 but no unhappy incident is reported to have taken place so far. The Magistrate has further observed that the present landlords appear to be in a mood of total eviction of the tenants and that is why they have also moved an application under Section 21 of the Rent: Control and Eviction Act for the release of the property in their favour for demolition and reconstruction of the building. After having arrived at these findings the learned Magistrate confirmed the notice issued by him under Section 133 CrPC. He was of the opinion that total demolition of the entire building was not called for and that the process of demolition and construction shall be carried out bit by bit in such a way that tenants are not put to inconvenience. This process would be carried out with mutual consent of the parties and with the approval of the local authority within three months. If parties do not agree, necessary action be taken. Section 133 (1) (d) runs as follows :-

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that this revision succeed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Magistrate on 11-2-1974 ana confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur on 15th May 1974 are hereby set aside. Revision allowed.