The Magistrate's power to attach or seal property under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to cases of emergency or uncertainty of possession, and the Magistrate must give reasons for the order.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, sealing the door of the mezzanine floor of the property in dispute opening towards the staircase which prevents the petitioners from using the staircase.

( 2 ) PREMISES No. 4946-48, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, was purchased in June, 1979 by Satinder Singh and Shri Pal Singh, respondents 3 and 4, M/s K. G. Raj and Company, watch merchants, respondent No. 2, and M/s Castophene Manufacturing Company, had been in occupation of the first and second floor of the premises as tenants for the last many years before the purchase of the property by the said respondents According to respondent No. 2, the said respondent and the other tenant had been entitled to the exclusive use of the staircase and respondent No. 2 used to put its lock on the door. outside the staircase, apparently with an arrangement with the other tenant for the purpose of security of their properly. The ground floor of the property, which consists of a shop, has been in possession of respondents 3 and 4 after the purchase of the property and it appears that the said respondents recently made wide structural changes in the ground floor so as to convert the shop into some kind of a mini market. Between the ground floor and the first floor is a mezzanine floor and there is considerable controversy between the parties if the mezzanine floor was in existence before the purchase or was recently constructed by respondents 3 and 4 alongwith making other structural alterations in the ground floor of the premises. There is a door which opens towards the staircase from the mezzanine floor and here also there is considerable controversy between the parties if there has been an opening from the mezzanine to the stairs from before or the opening was recently made and/or a steel structure was substituted for the wooden opening. There has also been some controversy if respondents 3 and 4 had obtained the prior permission of the local authority for the changes or if any such permission was necessary. It was urged that the recent construction put up by respondents 3 and 4 was unauthorised and is not only liable to be demolished but that it had been publically notified that the local authority proposes to deal with it in accordance with law. There is also controversy between the parties if the petitioners, who claim to be exporters and importers, and are not connected with the owners, have been in occupation of the mezzanine as tenants under the owners since April, 1981, as claimed by the petitioner, or were recently inducted into the newly constructed mezzanine somewhere in September, 1981, when contempt proceedings were initiated against the said respondents and the petitioners, on the ground that they had violated an injunction granted by a Civil Court.

( 3 ) IT appears from an entry in the daily diary of September 13, 1981 of Police Station Lahori Gate that on a report to the Police, a Police Party went to the premises and were told that when fixing an iron shutter in place of a wooden door at the opening of the mezzanine, some debris fell into the staircase which was not liked by the employees of K. G. Raj and Go. , respondent No. 1. The Police party, however, found that there was "no dispute" and were assured by the employees of respondent No 1 that "there was no quarrel". It was further observed that "no offence committed worth recording". The report concluded thus "owner of the building Shri Raghbir Singh Chhabra came on the spot and explained the whole situation to the tenants and impressed upon them that they would not be put to any inconvenience and that the staircase will be got cleaned". This was, however, not the end of the matter. On September 17, 1981, K. G. Raj and Go. filed a suit in a Civil Court for permanent injunction against the owners. Castophene Manufacturing Co. , t