JUDGMENT

D.D. Seth, J. - The revision arises out of proceedings under S. 133, CrPC. The facts are that Mohd. Yunus, opposite party to this revision is the land- lord of a building which is known as Ahata No. 90/65 Iftakarabad in the city of Kanpur. The Ahata is occupied by the applicants who are tenants. Mohd. Yunus filed an application sometime in the middle of August 1967 before the learned Magistrate 1st class Kanpur under S. 133, CrPC, stating therein that he was the owner of the building in dispute and it consisted of 22 quarters and that tenants resided in those quarters and further that the building had become dilapidated and was in a dangerous condition and was likely to fall any moment. He had further stated that he had already moved a number of applications in the Nagar Mahapalika for demolishing the building but the Nagar Mahapalika did not pay any heed to his request and hence the application under S. 133, CrPC.

2. The learned Magistrate called for a police report and the police reported supporting the allegations of the landlord, Mohd. Yunus and the learned Magistrate, being satisfied with the police report, passed a conditional order on September 22, 1967 issuing notices to Mohd. Yunus and to the tenants, i.e. the applicants in this revision, and asking Mohd. Yunus to show cause why the building should not be demolished and also requiring the tenants to show cause why the building should not be demolished.

3. The applicants appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed their written statements raising objections to the application filed by Mohd. Yunus. According to the applicants the house was not in a dangerous condition and further it caused no nuisance and that the walls of the building were pucca and that the landlord was, in fact, desirous of getting the rent of the quarters enhanced and as he could not succeed in ejecting the applicants he was obliged to file the application under S. 133, CrPC. According to the tenants there was no imminent danger to the public and hence the application was liable to be rejected.

4. In support of his case Mohd. Ynus filed a certified copy from the construction department of the Corporation (if Kanpur in which it was mentioned that the building in dispute was in a dilapidated condition and was likely to fall and that he was prepared to meet the expenses of the corporation for demolishing the building. Mohd. Yunus also filed an application dated July 19, 1965 in which he had requested the building to be demolished as it was in a dangerous conditions. He also filed a copy of the telegram addressed to the Chief Engineer, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and also filed copies of reports dated September 20, 1967 of retired Assistant Engineer, Kanpur Corporation, which is Ex. Ka. 2 and it is mentioned in this document that the wall of the house in dispute along the land has bulged out and bricks had decayed. It is further mentioned that the roof of the main entrance towards east had partly fallen down and that the house is in a dilapidated condition and some portions of the roof have already fallen down and the rest of the quarters may fall any moment. According to this report the house was not in a condition to be repaired and was in a dangerous condition and was only fit to be demolished without delay. Another report of the Assistant Engineer, Sri J.P. Agarwal of the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, was filed and is Ex. Ka. I on record. This Engineer also found the house to be in a dangerous condition and fit to be demolished. On the other hand the applicants produced Meer Sajid Ali, an overseer of the Corporation of Kanpur and also produced Ramautar, Sri Ram Tyagi, Fakir Mohammad and Gauri Shanker to show that the building in dispute was not so dilapidated or dangerous as to fall down and that according to these witnesses the building could last for another 30 years.

5. The learned Magistrate has observed in his order that in his cross-examination the Overseer. Meer Sajid Ali, stated that l