The provisions of sections 133 to 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, deal with cases of public nuisance and are not the provisions to be used either by the landlord or by the tenant, either for eviction of unwanted tenant, who cannot otherwise be got rid of, or by the tenants for getting quick repairs effected on their own instance side-tracking the landlord and the usual proceedings necessary to be taken before the Rent Controller.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 133(1)(D) - PUBLIC NUISANCE - JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION - CONSTRUCTION - INHERENT POWERS - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - ILLEGALITY - FINAL ORDER - REVISION - SECTION 397(2) - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - BAR TO REVISION - APPLICABILITY - OWNER'S RIGHTS - ABROGATION - JURISDICTIONAL ERROR - CORRECTION - DUTY OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a landlord, filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying for quashing of a preliminary order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur, under the provisions of section 133(1)(d) of the said Code. The respondent, a tenant, had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 133(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the roof of the shop in his occupation was leaking due to the deliberate act of the petitioner and that this leakage was required to be stopped immediately. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order directing the respondent to repair the roof at his own risk within 15 days.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to pass the preliminary order under section 133(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the allegations in the respondent's application did not make out a case of public nuisance. The Court further held that the preliminary order was illegal and without jurisdiction, and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had erred in passing the order in favor of the respondent, a tenant, to the exclusion of the petitioner, the owner of the building. The Court also held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have passed an appropriate order in the case in exercise of that Court's revisional powers, as the conditional order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate finally and completely abrogated the petitioner's rights under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the preliminary order under section 133(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973? 2. Whether the preliminary order was illegal and without jurisdiction? 3. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have passed an appropriate order in the case in exercise of that Court's revisional powers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of sections 133 to 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, deal with cases of public nuisance and are not the provisions to be used either by the landlord or by the tenant, either for eviction of unwanted tenant, who cannot otherwise be got rid of, or by the tenants for getting quick repairs effected on their own instance side-tracking the landlord and the usual proceedings necessary to be taken before the Rent Controller. 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate erred in passing the preliminary order in favor of the respondent, a tenant, to the exclusion of the petitioner, the owner of the building, as the words “the person owning, possessing or controlling such building” in section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not give the Sub-Divisional Magistrate a free choice to pass the conditional order under section 133(1)(d)(iv) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in favor of the respondent to the exclusion of the petitioner. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge could have passed an appropriate order in the case in exercise of that Court's revisional powers, as the conditional order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate finally and completely abrogated the petitioner's rights under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the preliminary order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and directed that the application filed by the respondent before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall stand rejected.

JUDGMENT - Joshi V.V. J.-This is an application filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution and under section 482 of the Criminal Proce-dure Code, 1973, praying for quashing of a preliminary order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur, under the provisions of sec-tion 133(l)(d) of the said Code.

2. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 is a tenant in one block of a building owned by the petitioner in Chandrapur town and the respondent No. 1 is running a cloth shop in that tenanted portion. It appears, there have been disputes going on between the landlord and the tenant and it appears the landlord has been trying to evict the tenant by taking proceedings before the Rent Controller, while the tenant-respondent No. 1 has been trying to checkmate the landlord and in this respect he filed an application on 5–3-1979 under section 16 of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, before the Rent Controller, on the allegation that the roof of the shop in occupation of the applicant (in that proceedings) was leaking due to deliberate act of the present applicant-land-lord and this leakage was required to be stopped immediately. It is stated that this application has been pending since long before the Rent Controller, without any orders. Thereafter, it is not disputed that in the early hours of 13–7-1981 half portion of the. roof of the block of the non-applicant No. I fell down. The non-applicant No. I, thereafter, on 20–7-1981 filed an appli-cation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur, under sec-tion 133(l)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, putting forth these facts and then saying further in para 3 of the application.

“3. Almost half portion of the roof towards eastern side i.e. to-wards the shop of Mina Soda Factory collapsed in the early hours of 13th day of July, 1981. The applicant contends that the roof collapsed because of the deliberate act of digging the roof from top by the non-applicant. Since the roof collapsed at night time, fortunately there has been no damage or injury to any person. However, property worth about Rs. 10,000 of the applicant, has been damaged because of this fall of the roof. The condition of the remaining half portion of the roof now is such that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons carrying on business in 'the shop and, hence, this remaining portion of the roof requires immediate repair and support. In fact the applicant submits that the entire roof of the shop requires-to be constructed immediately and this can be constructed without the applicant vacating the shop. The applicant is a person who is possessing and controlling the said shop presently. The applicant, is, therefore, placing all this information before this Hon'ble Court for making a conditional order requiring the applicant, within a time fixed to be in the order to repair the roof of the building immediately or at any rate to give support to the falling half portion of the roof immediately.

3. The applicant had shown the condition of the premises to Shri Ramniklal B. Chavan, who is a reputed Architect of this town. His inspection report stating that the premises requires repairs is filed here-with. The applicant is also filing the photographs of the premises show-. ing the present position inside and outside the shop. The necessary order of necessary repairs may be passed at the risk of the applicant.

Prayer: It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue conditional order directing the applicant to repair the roof of the building or at least to give support to the remaining half portion of the roof within the time to be fixed in the order.”

It may be mentioned that the present applicant Sudhakar Welankiwar was joined as non-applicant in the application filed under section 133(l)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. On this application having been filed by the present non-applicant No. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Magi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document