JUDGMENT - N.B. NAIK, J.:---This revision application is filed by the original applicant against the order of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, passing an order adverse to the applicant in a proceeding under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was commenced by him. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are briefly these : The immoveable property in dispute consists of room Nos. 21-A and 21-B, on the 4th floor of Shivlal Motilal Mansion, No. 303 at Bellasis Road, Bombay. The applicant claims to be the receiver appointed by the High Court for managing the said Shivlal Motilal Mansion. He alleged that the said rooms were actually under his lock and key for about 8 months and he had actually put up a board on the premises to the effect that the receiver was in possession of the premises. According to him, on the night between 6th and 7th August, 1963, at about 2.30 a.m. The respondents high-handedly broke open the lock and entered into possession of the premises. It may be mentioned that respondents 1 to 3 are brothers and the allegation is that they entered into the possession of the premises with the help of the 4th respondent who is alleged to be of a dangerous character. This allegation was resisted by respondent No. 1 whose contentions were adopted by the other respondents. The respondent No. 1 having denied the applicants case as made out in his application dated 14-8-1973, under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, contended that he and the members of his family have been actually occupying the premises in question ever since July 1970 and that in fact that fact is supported by the fact that he holds ration card on that premises, a bank account bearing the address of the premises, correspondence received on the said premises and what is more, the electoral roll of 1971. He complained that on 31-7-1973, at about 8.00 p.m. the applicant accompanied by others having asked him to vacate and given him threats to vacate he was obliged to file a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on 1-8-1973 for a declaration of his being a tenant in the suit premises and for an injunction. He, therefore, complained that by taking an emergency ex parte order, the applicant had abused the process of the Court. He, therefore, complained that by taking an emergency ex parte order, the applicant had abused the process of the Court. 3. In support of the applicants case, as observed in para 3 of the judgment of the learned Magistrate, 16 affidavits were filed 12 out of these were of the neighbours residing in the same building, who supported the applicants contention that the two rooms were lying vacant since October 1973 and were under the lock and key till the respondents trespassed into them on 7-8-1973 at about 2.30 a.m. by breaking open the lock. The applicant also filed 4 affidavits of the persons residing at Jogeshwari in support of his contention that till the trespass complained of, for about two years the respondents 1 to 3 were in fact residing at Jogeshwari in a hut belonging to one Mrs. Randevi Verma. These affidavits included the affidavit of the said Mrs. Verma also who is the sister of the Rent Collector of the applicant. As against that, as observed in para 3 of the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the respondents filed 13 affidavits including 3 filed by the respondent and these affidavits supported the claim of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 also produced the ration card issued in July 1970, the bank pass-book issued by the Bank of India and the electoral roll of 1971 and correspondence. 4. Referring to the above affidavits and rival contentions of the parties, in paragraph 4 of his judgment, the learned Magistrate observed that “considering the number of affidavits filed by both the parties I am of the opinion that this case cannot be decided on the strength of affidavits filed by each party and that the documentary evidence would be the most important evidence to be considered in this case.” 5. It may be also mentioned that in support of his contention, the applicant relied upon the statements of respondents 1 to 3 recorded by the Jogeshwari police on 19-3-1973 in connection with the criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against some others persons for alleged assault. It may be mentioned that in these police statements as pointed out by Mr. Jethmalani, the respondents 1 to 3 have stated that they were residing at Jogeshwari and that the incident of assault took place when they were either in their house or in front of their house. It may be mentioned that in these police statements as pointed out by Mr. Jethmalani, the respondents 1 to 3 have stated that they were residing at Jogeshwari and that the incident of assault took place when they were either in their house or in front of their house. The learned Magistrate having regard to the documentary evidence relied upon by the respondents explained a way these police statements of respondents 1 to 3 dated 19-3-1973 by observing that he did not think that any reliance could be placed on this evidence and that it is probable that at the time of the incident the respondents might have gone to Jogeshwari and when their statements were recorded they might have given their Jogeshwari address. In the ultimate analysis after considering the material before him, the learned Magistrate took the view that the version of the applicant could not be relied upon and that it is the version of the respondents which deserves to be accepted. That is why he declared that the respondent No. 1 was in possession of the two rooms on the date of the preliminary order and he directed by his final order that the property which was handed over to the police should be made over to the respondents. 6. It is the propriety of the said order which is challenged by Mr. Jethmalani in this revision application. 7. Having drawn my attention to the opening part of paragraph 3 of the judgment of the learned Magistrate, to the effect that “considering the number of affidavits filed by both the parties I am of the opinion that this case cannot be decided on the strength of affidavits filed by each party”. Mr. Jethmalani argued that this is a case where the learned Magistrate having failed to discharge his duty of deciding the matter on a perusal of the affidavits, this Court has every reason to interfere with the finding of the Court after appreciating the evidence on merits. Mr. Jethmalani also took exception to the observations of the learned Magistrate explaining away the police statements of the respondents dated 19-3-1973 wherein they had stated in clear terms that they were then residing at Jogeshwari. Mr. Mr. Jethmalani also took exception to the observations of the learned Magistrate explaining away the police statements of the respondents dated 19-3-1973 wherein they had stated in clear terms that they were then residing at Jogeshwari. Mr. Jethmalani argued that it is for that reason also that this Court can interfere as this is a case of misdirection on a point of law and a case of not applying the mind to the facts of the case. He, therefore, argued that this is a case where the Court can interfere in revision and proceed to re-assess the evidence. If that is done, argues Mr. Jethmalani, the Court would find that the quality of the evidence tendered by the petitioner is far superior to the quality of the evidence led by the respondents and, therefore, argued Mr. Jethmalani the order should be set aside. 8. I am not impressed with any of these submission of Mr. Jethmalani. When the learned Magistrate observed in paragraph 4 that, “considering the number of affidavits filed by both the parties he was of the opinion that this case cannot be decided on the strength of affidavits filed by each party”, what in effect the learned Magistrate intends to convey is that the mater cannot be decided on the strength of the affidavits alone as is made clear from the context of the sentence. Mr. Jethmalani is not right when he says that the affidavits are not considered. In fact in para 3 of his judgment, the learned Magistrate has set out the substance of the affidavits and he has also discussed the substance of the affidavits in paragraph 5. I, therefore, do not think that on the facts of this case there is any scope for interference by this Court in revision. 9. Even otherwise I am of the view that on the facts and circumstances of this case no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The case of the rival parties as pointed out is being sought to be supported by the affidavits filed in support of the case of each party. None of these documents in their very nature are subjected to cross-examination. As against this untested affidavit evidence we have got cogent and clinching prima facie evidence in support of the version of the respondent No. 1. None of these documents in their very nature are subjected to cross-examination. As against this untested affidavit evidence we have got cogent and clinching prima facie evidence in support of the version of the respondent No. 1. That is furnished firstly by the ration card issued on 23-7-1970 which consists of the name of the respondent No. 1, his wife, his brother the 3rd respondent and even a child aged 4 and others. What is more, we find that when his brother and other members went out of the ration area their names have been deleted and they happened to be the wife, son and the brother of respondent No. 1. This ration card would show prima facie that the ration was even drawn right from the time it was issued in July 1970 till the end of 1973. We have then the bank pass book issued by the Bank of India in the name of respondent No. 1 and it shows that the account is operated from 21-11-1970 to 16-10-1972 and the address given therein is Room No. 21, Shivlal Motilal Mansion, 303 Bellasis Road, Bombay. Same is the address given in the ration card. We have then the electoral roll for 1971 wherein the name of respondent No. 1 is shown as a voter. We have then the postal correspondence in the form of letters and Inland letters from January, 1971 to 20th July, 1973. What is more, we have got the admission form of the Hindustan Motor Training School dated 6-10-1971 in the name of respondent No. 1 wherein the address given is Block No. 21-B, 303 Shivlal Motilal Mansion, 4th floor, Bellasis Road, Bombay-8. The respondent No. 1 for whatever it is worth has also filed the rent receipts issued by one Sitaram Oza, the Rent Collector on 6-11-1970, 22-10-1971, 4-8-1970 and 11-10-1971. Although the applicant has disputed the genuineness of these receipts it is significant to note that he has not disputed the fact that Sitaram Oza is his Rent Collector. What is more, on the 1st of August, 1973 the respondent No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes for a declaration that he is a tenant and for an injunction and he secured an ad interim injunction on 4-8-1973. He also made application for fixation of standard rent on that very day and interim rent was fixed on 3-8-1973. He also made application for fixation of standard rent on that very day and interim rent was fixed on 3-8-1973. Prima facie it is difficult to believe that unless the respondent No. 1 and his family members were actually residing in the disputed premises he could have continuously drawn the ration on that address or operated the bank account and had received the correspondence. It is also unlikely that this part of the documentary evidence could have been concocted will in advance for the purpose of filing the suit in August 1973. It is true that in their statements recorded by the police on 19-3-1973 the first three respondents have stated that at the relevant time they were residing at Jogeshwari and that the incident of assault took place when they were in their house or in front of their house at Jogeshwari. For whatever it is worth the respondent No. 1 has explained away these admissions against him by his second affidavit filed in January 1974, stating inter alia, that his brother-in-law used to reside there and that at the relevant time because his youngest brother had come and it was Holi festival, he and his brothers had gone to his brother-in-laws place at Jogeshwari and it is in these circumstances that the incident has occurred. Prima facie no inference could be drawn in favour of the applicant in view of this explanation given by respondent No. 1 which is supported by documentary evidence relied upon by the respondents to which attention is drawn. It would thus appear that even if it were open to this Court to re-assess the evidence no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 10. Since the suit has already been filed by respondent No. 1, it is open to the applicant to move the Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and Mr. Dhanuka says that the respondents are not interested in opposing that application. 11. In the result, the revision application is rejected and the rule is discharged. The respondent No. 1 be put in possession of the suit premises immediately as directed by the learned Magistrate. The Rule is discharged. ------