JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This petition is directed against an order dated 30-9-1964 passed u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate 1st Class, Sambalpur, calling upon the Petitioner to vacate a building and to remove his articles kept therein. 2. The Petitioner was occupying the building as a tenant for a number of years under opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The building stands by the side of road in Jharsuguda town and a portion of the building is occupied by its owners for their residential and shop purposes. Admittedly the building is in a dilapidated condition and there is the risk of its being collapsed at any moment. A photograph (ext. 1) of the building was also placed before me at the time of hearing which gives a clear picture of its condition. The learned Magistrate who initiated the proceeding u/s 133 also made a local inspection and found the house including its roof in a state beyond repairs and required to be completely dismantled. Both parties led some evidence and the learned Magistrate after consideration of the evidence and the materials on record as also his own inspection, came to the conclusion that the house should be demolished in the interest of public safety. He accordingly passed an order u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure for demolition of the building. It is this order of the learned Magistrate which is challenged in this petition. 3. That the Magistrate has jurisdiction to take action u/s 133 is beyond dispute. Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia provides that whenever a Magistrate of the 1st. class considers, on receiving a police report or other information, that an building is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to person living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and in consequence the removal or repair of such building is necessary to prevent the danger arising to the public the Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person in occupation, or possession, or control of such building to remove or repair such building, within the time fixed by the order. 4. 4. In the present case, however, the Magistrate directed the Petitioner to vacate occupation of the house and to remove his articles, if any, to a safer place within seven days from the date of receipt of the order and he further directed opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, the owners of the building, to demolish the structure. So far as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, there is no illegality in the order of the Magistrate. But so far as the Petitioner is concerned the order relating to him cannot be allowed to stand inasmuch as it is not within the powers of the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction u/s 133, Code of Criminal Procedure to ask a party to vacate a house in his possession or to remove his goods there from. All that he is empowered under the law is to pass an order to remove or repair the building. As stated before in the present case the Magistrate found on evidence that the house in question was beyond and was in complete dilapidated condition and was a constant danger to the neighbours and passersby. In that view of the matter the learned Magistrate was justified in directing the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to remove the building, but he cannot can upon the Petitioner to vacate the premises and to remove the articles there from, though no doubt in giving effect to his order it may become necessary for the Petitioner to vacate the premises before the house could be demolished. That portion of the order of the learned Magistrate calling upon the Petitioner to vacate the premises, must therefore set aside and the case sent back to the Magistrate. It is now open to the Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the materials on record in terms of Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure if the nuisance still continues. 5. Mr. Mukherji, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that for the repair of the house he has already made a deposit of Rs. 400/- with the Municipality as per Ext. A and that he is prepared to repair the house himself or through the agency of the Municipality even at his own cost and without calling upon the landlord to bear the cost. 400/- with the Municipality as per Ext. A and that he is prepared to repair the house himself or through the agency of the Municipality even at his own cost and without calling upon the landlord to bear the cost. This, after all is a matter for negotiation between the landlord and the tenant with which we are not concerned in this proceeding. But as appears from the inspection report of the learned Magistrate, the house is beyond repairs and in that view of the matter he directed the landlord opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to demolish the structure. That part of the order, however, is a valid one and shan stand. 6. In view of the aforesaid position only that portion of the order of the learned Magistrate whereby he directed "that the Petitioner should vacate his occupation of the structure and remove his things" should be set aside. As stated above, it is open to the Magistrate to pass a fresh order in terms of Section 133, if the nuisance still continues, and to proceed with the case in accordance with law. This revision is allowed and the case remanded. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed