JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - In an indenture of a lease executed on 27th of r" May, 1966 between the Municipal Council of Parlakhemedi (Petitioner, the lessor) and Haribandhu Sahu (Opposite party, the lessee) the following are the relevant terms: 1. In consideration of the lease hereby reserved and of the covenants by the lessee herein contained the lessor deeds upto the lessee, all that piece of property forming the Municipal Coronation Market and Saturday Shandy and more particularly described in the schedule I attached hereto for a term of one year from 1st April, 1966 paying therefore in advance of the reserved lease amount of Rs. 3,750/ - before 1-4-1966 and out of the balance of the reserved lease amount of Rs. 11,250/ - a sum of Rs. 1,125/ - having been already paid in one instalment up till now the net balance of Rs. 10.25/ - to be paid within 1-1-1967 in monthly instalments commencing from 1-4-1966. 5. The lease is liable to be terminated at any time within the period of the lease, if any two successive instalments be not paid; and in such a case the right of collection will again be put to auction or managed by the lessor and the loss, if any, will be recovered from the lessee; but the lessee has not be entitled for the profits, if any, obtained by the lessor over the resale of management by the lessor in such a case. The auction was held on 22nd of March, 1966 and was settled on the lessee on that date. On 30th of March, 1966, the lessee paid Rs. 3,750/ -. On 27th May, 1966, the lessee paid Rs. 1,125/ - and the deed was executed on that date. The lessee paid Rs. 1,125/ - on 2-6-1966 The case of the Municipal Council is that the lessee defaulted in paying three installments on 1-4-1960, 1-5-1966 and 1-6-1906. On a conclusion that there was forfeiture of the lease due to default in payment of two successive instalments and due to failure to furnish solvency certificate as stipulated, the lease was cancelled hardly twelve days after its execution with effect from 9-6-1966. The decision was intimated to the opposite party by the Executive Officer, Municipality by a letter dated 7-6-1960. The decision was intimated to the opposite party by the Executive Officer, Municipality by a letter dated 7-6-1960. On a police report dated 8-6-1966 that there was apprehension of breach of peace a preliminary order restraining both the parties u/s 144(2), Code of Criminal Procedure was passed on 9-6-1966. On 13-6-1966, the final order was passed restraining the Petitioners for a period of two months from interfering with enjoyment of the lease by the opposite party. The Criminal Revision has been filed against this order. 2: The argument before this Court covered a wide field. It is unnecessary to refer to them as on a proper construction of the terms of the lease, a case of forfeiture has not been made out and the right of the lessee to continue in possession subsists. It is conceded that if forfeiture has not come into operation, the lessor has no right of re-entry. 3. It is to be noted that the lease was executed on 27-6-1966. Mr. Pal's contention is that by the date of the execution of the document, two of the agreed instalments payable on 1-4-1966 and 1-5-1966 had already fallen due. In the absence of any date fixed in the document as to when such arrear dues were to be paid, forfeiture would not fail. If those instalments were payable on 1-4-1966 and 1-5.1966, the lease could not have been executed on 27-5-1966 with out insisting upon those payments. To accept Mr. Pal's contention would mean that the forfeiture clause had operated even by the date of the execution of the lease. By reasonable construction of the document as a whole, the irresistible conclusion is that those two instalments were payable some times after 27-5-1966 of which no specific date was fixed. In the circumstances, the opposite party cannot be said to have felted in the payment of two Successive instalments falling due en 14-1966 and 1-5-1966. 4. A close analysis of the terms of the document shows that the balance of Rs. 11,200/ - were made payable in 10 equal instalments. One of the instalments was made payable before the execution of the document. The other 9 instalments were payable in 9 monthly instalments, the last instalment being payable within 1-1-1967. If the fist instalment out of these 9 instalments was payable on 1-4-1966,0 obviously the last instalment would be payable on 1-12-1966. One of the instalments was made payable before the execution of the document. The other 9 instalments were payable in 9 monthly instalments, the last instalment being payable within 1-1-1967. If the fist instalment out of these 9 instalments was payable on 1-4-1966,0 obviously the last instalment would be payable on 1-12-1966. Such a construction would make the provision of the last instalment being payable within -1.1967 redundant. The reasonable construction would be that the balance of Rs. 11,250/ - was payable in 10 instalments commencing from 1-4-1966 ending with 1-1-1967. Out of the two instalments already falling due by 27-5-1966, the date of the execution of the document, one was paid on 27.5.166 and no date was fixed with regard to the payment of the second instalment. Apparent contradictions in the various terms of the leave have to be reconciled. The duration of the lease commenced from 1-4-1966, but the document incorporating the legal rights of the parties was executed about two months later on 27-5-1966. As there was no provision as to when the second instalment was payable it is difficult to hold that the lessee failed to make payment in respect of two successive instalments. The forfeiture clause did not come into operation. The lessee: the legal right, to continue in possession. 5. A Magistrate acting u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure should not ordinarily usurp the function of a civil Court which alone is competent finally to decide the right of the parties. But for the purpose of passing a reasonable order he has to take into consideration the nature of claims set up by the parties in order to see whether or not it is possible to afford protection to those who seek only the lawful exercise of any legal rights. The Magistrate has authority to override temporarily private rights in case of emergency to secure to every person the enjoyment of his legal rights and to deter those who seek to invade the right of the others. If there was apprehension of breach of peace arising out of the lessor's taking law into its own hands, an order u/s 144 restraining the Municipal Council from interfering with possession of the lessee was justified. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision fails and is, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed