JUDGMENT

H.N. Kapoor, J. - This revision has been filed against the final order dated Dec. 7, 1972 passed by Shri S.C. Rastogi City Magistrate in proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. ordering demolition of house No. 44/403 Nai Sarak, Kanpur, which is a waqf property of which Maqbool Husain is the mutwalli. The applicant was one of the three tenants in this building. The other two tenants were also the parties to the proceedings but they were not impleaded in this revision nor has the State has been made a party which should have been done. The proceedings were initiated on the application of the opposite party on the ground that the building is a very old and in a dilapidated condition. A portion of the building had fallen down and the rest of it was likely to fall down endangering the public life. The learned Magistrate obtained a police report. He made an enquiry. He also inspected the site and then passed the impugned order.

2. One of the grounds taken in this revision is that no provisional order was passed. The Magistrate had passed the order dated September 4, 1971 on the basis of a report made by an Engineer produced by the opposite party and had been issued notice to all the parties concerned requiring them to demolish the building or to appear from him and show cause. There is thus no illegality in this regard.

3. It was next argued that the notice was wrongly issued to the applicant who was only a tenant and as such the notice could be for vacating the house and not for demolishing the same. The notice was issued to the owner as well as to the tenants who were the occupiers. The purpose was that they may not interfere with the demolition of the building by the owner.

4. It was next argued that the evidence adduced by the applicant has not been properly considered and that the findings given by the learned Magistrate are perverse. It was also argued that it has not been proved that the condition of the building was such that it would have fallen outside and was dangerous to the life of the persons of the neighbourhood or passers-by. It was further argued that the entire building could not have been ordered to be demolished. In this case the evidence of Murtaza Husain (P.W. 1) was recorded, who is a qualified and experienced Overseer. He had proved his inspection notes. It was found that the roof of the hall had collapsed in which the revisionist had installed a chakki, slippers had been worn out, walls had developed cracks and had tilted. One of the tenants Munshi Abdul Hamid, who has not been made a party in this revision had admitted that the wall of the house had collapsed and the remaining building had developed cracks and had tilted walls. It was also proved by the evidence that the building was an old one and was in a dangerous condition and could collapse at any time endangering the life and property of the dwellers and the public. It has also cone in evidence that there is a school adjacent to the said building. The safety of the children was also to be taken into consideration.

5. The revisionist had examined the Engineer Shri A.T. Patel (P.W. 1). His report also shows that the roof of the chakki had fallen down. He had, however, reported that the building was about fifty years old and required proper repairs and would not collapse if the repairs were properly carried out. When he was examined in court, he stated that the building could be 80 or 90 years old and that it was in its last stage. He also stated that if the upper storey falls down, the lower portion too would be affected. He could not state as to how long the building could last. He further stated that it was correct that it was dangerous to the life of the passers-by in case it falls down. The learned Magistrate himself had made an inspection and had prepared his inspection notes. After considering the entire evidence on the record as well as his inspection notes, he arrived at the conclusion that the entire building was in such a condition that