JUDGMENT - S.B. BHASME, J.:---These two applications arise out of proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As they are between the same parties and identical questions of law and fact are involved, I propose to give one judgment. The petitioners in both these applications claim to be in occupation of certain rooms and open space. This may be described as the eastern wing of the property. Respondent No. 1 (hereafter referred to as the respondent) appears to be in possession of certain rooms and open space which forms the western wing of the property. There is an intervening wall. The respondent made two complaints successively in respect of his dispossession of one sitting room and certain open space or Court-yards. The learned trial Magistrate passed separate preliminary orders in respect of these complaints and proceeding under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated. Both the parties were called upon to file their respective claims within time. 2. Accordingly the petitioners filed their statements or claims and the affidavit of one witness. The respondents filed the affidavit of at least five witnesses. A number of documents were produced in support of the rival versions of the parties. 3. Shortly stated the case of the petitioner was that the respondents were in possession of only four rooms and no more area on the western side. According to the respondent they were initially in possession of four rooms and they had constructed three rooms. Out of these 7 rooms one room was a sitting room. The petitioners had forcibly disposed the respondent of the sitting room and the northern open space. The learned trial Magistrate, after consideration of all the evidence and the documents on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the room in question and the open space and as he was forcibly disposed an order for restoration of possession was accordingly made. The room appears to be locked and sealed by the police during the pendency of these proceedings. 4. Mr. Abhyankar, who appears for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order as there was no likelihood of any breach of peace. The learned Magistrate while passing the order says that there is likelihood of breach of peace regarding the possession of the immovable property. 4. Mr. Abhyankar, who appears for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order as there was no likelihood of any breach of peace. The learned Magistrate while passing the order says that there is likelihood of breach of peace regarding the possession of the immovable property. Admittedly both the parties are occupying the adjoining wings of the same property. A number of N.C. complaints were filed and they have been fighting from day to day. If in such a case the learned Magistrate records a finding that there is likelihood of breach of peace, then it cannot be suggested that the said finding is illegal. 5. Then Mr. Abhyankar relied on the affidavits on record and other documentary evidence for substantiating the case of the petitioners that the respondent was in possession of only four rooms and no more. The learned Magistrate has delivered separate judgments in respect of the room and the open space. He has taken into account a number of circumstances which would support the say of the respondent. He mentioned the fact that the respondent had filed the affidavits of five witnesses. As against that petitioners had produced the affidavit of only one witness. From 7th to 19th May, 1971 a number of non-cognizable complaints were filed at the Police Station. The learned Magistrate says that there must be some substance in the grievance of the respondent. Even the notice given by the petitioner to the respondent contains an admission that the respondent is in possession of four rooms. According to the reply given by the respondent he was in possession of four rooms and then there was a corridor and beyond that corridor he had constructed there more rooms. According to the petitioners these three rooms were in occupation of their tenants. The petitioners have not produced any evidence to substantiate this part of their case. The last important circumstance mentioned by the learned Magistrate is the situation of the property. The western wing and the eastern wing of the shed are divided by regular wall. There is no entrance within the shed to go from the western wing to the eastern wing. Admittedly the petitioners are in occupation of the eastern wing only. The respondent claims to be in exclusive possession of the western wing. The western wing and the eastern wing of the shed are divided by regular wall. There is no entrance within the shed to go from the western wing to the eastern wing. Admittedly the petitioners are in occupation of the eastern wing only. The respondent claims to be in exclusive possession of the western wing. The petitioners strongly claim possession of the room from the western wing which had no entrance from their side. There is no enter-connecting door to this room from any of the rooms on the eastern wing. It is for these reasons that the learned Magistrate records a finding that the respondent was in possession of the suit room in dispute on 7-5-1971 and on that date he was wrongfully dispossessed by the petitioners. 6. In the connected matter, the position appears to be worse for the petitioners. Here again respondent had promptly filed a complaint on 6-6-1971 at the Police Station. In this complaint he had complained about the petitioners planting the Singh Tree and blocking his entrance relating to the passage from the western wing to the Nawatia Road by putting up the fencing at the entrance. There is an open plot of land in front of the western wing of the property which abuts on the Nawatia Road. There is a passage leading from the western wing to the Nawatia Road, and this is used by the respondent and his family members. That passage is through the open plot in dispute. From all these facts the learned Magistrate concluded that the respondent must be in continuous and uniterrupted possession of the open space in dispute. The petitioners had not produced any evidence to show that they were over using the open space at any time. Therefore, the learned Magistrate found that the petitioners had wrongfully dispossessed the respondents from the open plot of land to the south and north of his shed. This was on 6-6-1971. As the orders passed by the learned Magistrate are supported by the evidence and facts and the circumstances of the case, and there is no error of law, the rule in both the applications will have to be discharged. Order accordingly. The stay granted by this Court will be operative only for four weeks from today. -----