The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and the determination of whether a disputed house poses an imminent danger requiring immediate demolition.

JUDGMENT

Anjuli Palo, J. - These petitions arise out of common order, therefore, they are being decided together by this common order. However, the facts narrated in M.Cr.C. No. 3317 of 2019 are being adumbrated herein

2. The applicants have filed these petitions invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 14.1.2019 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2016 whereby the revision filed by the applicants has been dismissed and the order dated 23.11.2015 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sohagpur, Shahdol in Case No. 238 of 1999 has been affirmed.

3. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are the owners and landlord of a house situated at Ward No. 26 and the applicants are the tenants of two shops in the house in dispute. Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 requested to the applicants to vacate the disputed shops on the ground that the house is very old and in a dilapidated condition and has become unsafe for human habitation but the applicants declined to vacate the shop, hence respondent Nos. 2 to 8/complainants filed proceedings (Annexure A-1) under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. to get the said accommodation vacated.

4. The applicants filed their reply inter alia contending that the complainants want to sell the house and have entered into agreements to that effect, therefore, they filed the complaint to get the accommodation vacated. It was also contended that the house in dispute is in good condition and it is not required to be demolished.

5. The SDM called a report from the Police Department regarding status of the house and on the basis of said report, passed an order on 15.2.2010 directing the applicants to vacate the accommodation and also directed to demolish the same. Being aggrieved thereby the applicants preferred a Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.3.2010 and the order passed by the SDM was upheld.

6. Challenging the said order, the applicants filed M.Cr.C. No. 2474 of 2010 before this Court, which was decided vide order (Annexure A-4) dated 29.9.2010 wherein the orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the SDM with direction to call for a new report from the office of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services (for short RES) with regard to the condition of the disputed house. It was observed that the SDM formed an opinion without examining Shri B.P. Verma and Police Officials. The opinion seems to have been formed on the basis of the report and the letter of Chief Municipal Officer dated 22.1.2009 and Police Report dated 5.8.2008 that too without cross-examining such witnesses.

7. After remand of the case, the SDM, Sohagpur called for a report from Executive Engineer and Officers of RES in compliance of the order dated 29.9.2010 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2474 of 2010. The Executive Engineer and Officers of RES submitted a joint enquiry report on 16.1.2012 and on the basis of the said report, the SDM passed the order on 23.11.2015 directing to demolish the disputed house.

8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2015, the applicants prerferred a Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2016 on the ground that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and, therefore, Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in this case. It was further stated that during pendency of dispute, some tenants have died and proceedings were initiated against their legal heirs whereas under Section 141(2) of Cr.P.C. the SDM is not competent to do so. It was further submitted that the application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 3.2.1997 and since then 19 years have elapsed but no damage has been caused to the disputed house, therefore, the SDM has arrived at a wrong conclusion.

9. The aforesaid revision has been dismissed by the Special Judge on the ground that according to the enqu