SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Ker) 64

Judges : S.PADMANABHAN
Porinchu - Appellant
Versus
Shanmugham And Others - Respondent
Case No : Criminal M.C. No. 1065 of 1986
Decided On : 02/12/1987
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: P. V. Ayyappan, Advocate. For the Respondent: M. N. Sukumaran Nair and B. Raman Pillai, Advocates.

The Rent Control Act does not confer vested rights on tenants and does not override the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

Building Condition - Cr.P.C. - Section 133(1)(d) - S. 133(1)(d) - Public Nuisances - Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - [Section 133(1)(d)] - The court discussed the powers of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge in relation to Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. and the limitations on the High Court's interference with their orders. It emphasized that the Rent Control Act does not confer vested rights on tenants and does not override the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The court also highlighted that the purpose of Section 133 is to avert danger to the public and that the non obstante clause in S. 11 of the Rent Control Act does not have overriding effect on S. 133 of the Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The first respondent, the owner of a building, initiated proceedings under Section 133(1)(d) of the Cr.P.C. due to the dangerous condition of the building. The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the final order confirmed by the Sessions Judge as an abuse of the process of law.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition, stating that the powers under Section 133 were not misused and the object of the proceeding was to avert public nuisance, not to evict tenants. It emphasized that the Rent Control Act does not confer vested rights on tenants and does not override the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

Issues: The issues involved the misuse of powers under Section 133, the alleged conflict between the Cr.P.C. and the Rent Control Act, and the contention that the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge did not consider all alternatives under S. 133(1)(d) of the Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rent Control Act does not confer vested rights on tenants and does not override the provisions of the Cr.P.C. It emphasized that the purpose of Section 133 is to avert danger to the public and that the non obstante clause in S. 11 of the Rent Control Act does not have overriding effect on S. 133 of the Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

Judgment :-

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 Section 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 Section 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 Session Judge dismissed the revision petition. The present petition was filed under Section 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.

4. Before adverting to these arguments, I think it is advisable to consider the powers of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge in this respect and the limitations within which alone this Court can interfere with the orders in exercise of the inherent powers. Section 133 appears in Chapter X relating to maintenance of public order and tranquility and comes under sub-heading B relating to public nuisances. Though the ambit of 'public nuisances' coming under Chap. X of the Cr.P.C. is not so wide as under the definition in S. 268 of the Indian Penal Code what is enjoined on the Magistrate is a public duty to avert danger to the public. Though danger to a single individual may also be sufficient in some cases what is involved is danger to the public and the provision is not intended to settle private disputes. It is not necessary that anybody in particular should move the Magistrate. When he is satisfied on the basis of a police report or other information and on taking such evidence as he thinks necessary that circumstances justifying action under the provision exist it is his duty to act. On such satisfaction he can pass the conditional order and issue notice and he is bound to do so in public interest. When cause is shown it is his duty to enquire into the matter and pass final orders after taking evidence. Who set the law in motion is not the question. The question is whether the Magistrate acted on sufficient satisfaction based on relevant materials.

5. Here we are concerned only with a building. The records show that the conditional order was issued by the Magistrate on the requisite satisfaction that the building is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and cause injury to persons. The final order also









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top