Section 133, Crpc deals with public nuisance and does not apply to private disputes. The proper remedy for private disputes is a civil suit.

The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust known as Chandrakanta Jawahar Lal Public Charitable Trust. The petitioner trust purchased premises No. 16/72, Civil Lines, Kanpur long ago and at that time five servant quarters at the back side of the premises were occupied by the respondents Nos. 3 to 12. The petitioner wants the respondents to vacate those quarters on the plea that the aforesaid servant quarters are old construc tions and they have outlived its normal life span and are in a ruinous condi tions. They did not vacate those quarters rather they sought protection under the U. P. Tenancy Act. The petitioner filed an application in the court of City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, seeking demolition of those servant quarters. The notice of that application was served on the respondents and they filed objections pleading inter alia that the proceedings under Section 133 (d), Crpc are not maintainable, but that objections filed by the respondents was rejected by the City Magistrate on 15-5-1992. The respondent Nos. 3 to 12 filed a revision for setting aside the notice/order summoning the respondents and also for quashing the proceedings. That revision was summarily dismissed by District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 18-7-1992 on the ground that the notice can not be held to be an order amenable to the criminal revision under Section 397 Crpc.

2. On 18-9-1992 the City Magistrate after hearing the patties rejected the objections and ordered for issuing conditional orders under Section 133, Crpc. Against that order the respondent Nos. 2 to 12 filed a revision peti tion before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar being Criminal Revision No. 234 of 1992. The said revision was allowed by IVth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by the impugned order dated 26-4- 1993.

3. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed challenging the said order dated 26-4-1993.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the revisional court wrongly observed that there was no sufficient material before the trial court for taking cognizance on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 133, Crpc and that there was no evidence to the effect that the quar ters in dispute were causing any nuisance or there was imminent danger to the public safety. In view of the report of Engineer placed OD record the building sought to be demolished was about 42 years old and its plaster etc. has been damped and, therefore, initiation of proceedings under Section 133, Crpc is in accordance with law and the order passed by the revisional court is bad in law.

5. I do not agree with this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present circumstances of the case.

6. It is settled principle of law that in writ jurisdiction disputed ques tion of the fact cannot be looked into. The dispute appears to be between the two private parties, i. e. the petitioner trust and the respondents who alleged themselves to be in occupation of this premises as tenants since long. A pri vate person has no right to insist that Magistrate shall pass orders under Section 133, Crpc.

7. Sections 133 to 141, Crpc deal with public nuisance and not with pri vate nuisance. Unless it is public muisance Section, 133 Crpc cannot be called in aid. The application of the petitioner which forms basis of the proceedings clearly indicates that apprehension is confined to damage in the neighbour hood. It cannot be termed as public nuisance. The remedy for the petitioner is a civil suit, although what constitute nuisance may be common to both the classes. Whether the building has outlived its normal span of life and whether it is a public nuisance are based on appreciation of the fact and the revisional court has correctly passed (sic) by the Magistrate. In writ jurisdiction I dec line to interfere in this matter in this writ petition to quash the order of the revisional court in the present circumstances of the case. It is a diapute between two private parties a