The first petitioner Devaki Amma whose legal heir is her son, the second petitioner, had in her ownership a commercial building in which there were several rooms. The rooms were rented out to several persons, one of them is the second respondent. The first petitioner filed a petition before the local Sub Divisional Magistrate alleging that the building was on the verge of collapse and it was necessary to demolish and remove it to avoid injury to persons passing by the road running along the boundary of the property. Her prayer is to direct the second respondent to vacate the room occupied by him as tenant. The Sub Divisional Magistrate passed Annexure-II conditional order directing the second respondent to vacate the room. After several rounds of litigation the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned final order directing the second respondent to vacate the room in his occupation. This was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the revision petition, allowed it and set aside the final order. This is challenged in this Revision Petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the final order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to hold that the building was in a such condition that it was likely to fall.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent tenant submits that the attempt of the petitioner- landlord is to evict the tenant, which is permitted only under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner- landlord contends that the provisions in that Act are not an impediment for taking steps under section 133 Cr.P.C, for which he relies on the decision of this court in Shanmughan Vs. Paul

[1986 KHC 323 : 1986 KLT 1242], Porinchu Vs. Shanmughan [1987(1) KLT 742], Kunjukrishna Pillai Vs.Sreekumar [1991 KHC 635 = ILR 1991(2) Ker.987] of the Bombay High Court in Tejmal Punamchand Burad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [1992 KHC 1138 = 1992 CriLJ 379) , of the Allahabad High Court in Smt.Geeta Devi and Ors. Vs.State of U.P and Ors. [1999(3) ACR 2518 = MANU/UP/1347/1999] and of the Supreme Court in Vasant Manga Nikumba and Others Vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu [1995 Supp

(4) SCC 54] . In all these cases the order passed by the Magistrate was in respect of buildings in the occupation of tenants. In Shanmughan Vs. Paul (Supra) this court held that Section 11 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act "is not intended to be an exception to S.133 (d) of the Code". What is inhibited in S.11 of the Act is only eviction of the tenant except in accordance with the provisions contained therein.

S.133 of the Code "is intended to meet an entirely different contingency though sometimes the occupants of the building including the tenants may have to vacate the building consequently". The same view has been taken in Porinchu Vs.Shanmughan and Kunjikrishnan Pillai Vs.Sreekumar (supra). In the decisions of the High Court of Bombay and Allahabad and the Supreme Court referred to above nothing was found wrong in taking proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C in respect of a building in the possession of tenants. The provisions in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act operate in different fields. The provisions in the Act are not obstacle for an executive Magistrate to take action under section 133 Cr.P.C in respect of buildings in the possession of tenants who are governed by the Act.

5. It appeared to me that the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was illegal on