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. 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 lie did not test the roof b% digging it. 5. The learned Magistrate has observed in his order that in his cross-examination the Overseer. Meer Sajid Ali, stated that lie did not test the roof b% digging it. He further stated that there was no test for the mortar and that the building was of category 'C' the life of which according to his estimate should be sixty years. The witness further admitted that the northern portion of the Ahata after the main entrance had fallen down on the right side and four quarters in front had also fallen down It was further admitted. by this witness that the house was constructed with the mortar of chuna and elsewhere with the mortar of earth. 6. In view of the evidence of the two Engineers and also in view of the testimony of Meer Sajid Ali the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the building was in a dangerous condition fit to be demolished and by his order dated Janury 17, 1970 made the conditional order absolute and directed the landlord to demolish the Ahata bearing the expenses himself. He also directed the tenants to vacate the house within three weeks from the date of his order and further ordered that the landlord will take up the demolition work only after one week of such vacation of the quarters by the tenants. 7. Against the order passed by the learned Magistrate the applicants preferred a revision which was dismissed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, and aggrieved by the orders passed by the courts below the applicants have come up in revision to this Court. 8. I have heard Sri V.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants , and Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, Sri R.N. Mulla and Sri Satyendra Nath Verma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. Sri V.D. Singh contended that the real intention of the opposite party was to have the tenants vacate the quarters occupied by them so that he may demolish the building and erect a new building and let out the new quarters at enhanced rent. According to the learned counsel the intention of the opposite party was malafide. I find no force in the submission. Mohd. According to the learned counsel the intention of the opposite party was malafide. I find no force in the submission. Mohd. Yunus had been pressing the Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur to have the Ahata demolished and when his request was not heard by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur he had to file an application under S. 133, CrPC, in the interest of public safety as the building was in a dilapidated and dangerous condition. 9. Sri V. D. Singh next contended that S. 133, CrPC is not meant to redress the grievance of a private individual which is of a civil nature and the extraordinary jurisdiction under S. 133, CrPC, should not be resorted to where civil proceedings can be taken. There is no force in this submission also. S. 133, CrPC, deals with conditional order for removal of nuisance and the relevant portion of that section reads as follows: "Whenever a Distt. Magistrate, a Sub ivisional Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class considers, on receiving a police report or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, ................ ................ ................ that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the. neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary, or ................ Such Magistrate may make a condition. all order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possession, such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order., to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or ................ ................ to prevent or stop the erection of, or to remove, repair or support, such building, tent or structure, or" 10. It will thus be seen that S. 133, CrPC gives full jurisdiction to the Magistrate to order demolition of the building which, in his opinion, is dangerous to public safety and is dilapidated and is only fit to be demolished. to prevent or stop the erection of, or to remove, repair or support, such building, tent or structure, or" 10. It will thus be seen that S. 133, CrPC gives full jurisdiction to the Magistrate to order demolition of the building which, in his opinion, is dangerous to public safety and is dilapidated and is only fit to be demolished. From the evidence on record in the instant case the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the Ahata in dispute was dilapidated and was in a dangerous condition and it was, in my opinion, therefore, the duty of the the learned Magistrate to have passed the order that he did in the interest of public safety and in order to remove the nuisance. 11. Sri V. D. Singh submitted that under the provisions of S. 133, CrPC, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the eviction of the applicants from the quarters in dispute. There is no force in this contention. The learned Magistrate could not order demolition of the building without first ordering the tenants to leave the building. He could not possibly order the building to be demolished over the heads of the tenants. I see nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 12. For the reasons mentioned above I do not find any force in this revision which is dismissed. The stay order is discharged. The applicant, are allowed seven days time to vacate the premises.