JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is an application for quashing of the order dated 19-2-1983 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. Jajpur converting a proceeding u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to one u/s 145 thereof and for attachment of the property and of order dated 7-3.1983 appointing the Revenue Inspector, Tentulidiha as receiver. 2. The disputed property is stated to be 12 decimals out of 24 decimals in mouza Khosalpur. Opposite party No. 1, Abdul Satar, is the admitted owner. An application was filed on 31-1-1983 by the Petitioner before the learned Magistrate alleging that he was a lessee under opposite party No. 1 of two rooms and by expending a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was running a shop there, on 5-12-1981 opposite party No. 1 agreed to sell the property to him and received consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed in due course. As opposite party No. 1 spitefully deferred to execute the sale deed the Petitioner initiated Complaint Case No. 551/82 in the Court of the S.D.J.M. Jajpur. On 30th January, 1983, opposite party No. 1 with the aid and assistance of his supporters held a meeting in front of the shop and gave threats to forcibly eject him and destroy his articles. There on the Petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate for initiation of an appropriate proceeding. The application was sent by the Magistrate to the Officer-in-charge, Mangalpur Police Station for enquiry an report. The Police submitted a report on 11-2-1983 to the effect that the house belonged to opposite party No. 1 but it was in occupation of the first party-Petitioner. The members of second party were large in number. As there was apprehension of breach of peace a t the instance of the opposite party initiation of a proceeding u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an order of restraint against the members of the second party were suggested. The learned, Magistrate started a proceeding u/s 144 and restrained the members of the second party from going upon the property in dispute. 3. The learned, Magistrate started a proceeding u/s 144 and restrained the members of the second party from going upon the property in dispute. 3. It further transpires from the record that opposite patty No. 1 had earlier on 29-12-1983 filed an application before the learned Magistrate, alleging that he had a house plot No. 570 and he had let out one room thereof to the Petitioner on rent and the Petitioner was carrying on a shop there. The Petitioner however, had committed default in payment of rent for 4 to 5 months and he was, intent upon evasion and with the help of his supporters was determined not to vacate his house and was openly declaring not to pay rent. Due to the threats given by the Petitioner, opposite party No. 1's life was in danger. He prayed for necessary action against the Petitioner. 4. It will be clear from the contents of the petition filed by opposite party no that he did not raise any dispute over possession of any immovable property. He admitted that the Petitioner was a tenant but rent was not being paid and the Petitioner was openly declaring that he would not vacate. The real grievance of opposite party No. 1 in his petition was the threatening attitude of the Petitioner and the apprehension of danger to his life. The said petition was sent by the Magistrate for necessary action by the Police. On 19-2-1983 the Police submitted a report that over the disputed land stood a small thatched house in the west and the Petitioner was carrying on his grocery business as a tenant under opposite party No. 1. It was also reported that the order passed u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been promulgated in respect of the entire land comprising of 12 decimals and a part of it was cultivable land in regard to which there was no dispute. There was another room in the house which was being used as post office. There was a verandah which stood on Government land. In view of the apprehension of breach of the peace the police suggested that the proceeding u/s 144 should be converted to one u/s 145. Thereupon by order dated 19-2-1983 the learned Magistrate, converted the proceeding to one u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed attachment of the disputed property. In view of the apprehension of breach of the peace the police suggested that the proceeding u/s 144 should be converted to one u/s 145. Thereupon by order dated 19-2-1983 the learned Magistrate, converted the proceeding to one u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed attachment of the disputed property. The Revenue Inspector, Tentulidhiha was appointed as receiver. In pursuance of the order, attachment was effected and articles were taken to custody upon a zimanama. 5. Shri P. Palit, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, conversion u/s 144 of the proceeding to one u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, attachment of the disputed property and appointment of a receiver were an abuse of the process of court and there has been miscarriage of justice by failure of the learned Magistrate to apply his mind judicially. He has urged that the Petitioner is admittedly a tenant under the opposite party No. 1. So rightly the learned Magistrate had restrained the members of the second party by promulgating an order u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But conversion thereof to a proceeding u/s 145 was not justified having regard to the allegations made by opposite party No. 1 in his petition dated 29-1-1983. He has further urged that the materials on record indicated that in one of the rooms of the house was located the post office and the Petitioner was in occupation of the rest. The opposite party No. 1 admitted the occupation of the rest of the house in his petition. His only grievance was that the Petitioner was not paying rent and was refusing to vacate. Opposite party No. 1 sought protection as there was reasonable apprehension of danger to his life due to threats given by the Petitioner and his supporters. The allegations hardly justified conversion of the proceeding u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to one u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when the opposite party No. 1 did not raise any dispute as regards possession of immovable property. 6. On going through the record I am satisfied that the Petitioner was in occupation in the balance portion of the house which was not used as post office. Initiation of a criminal proceeding is not the appropriate remedy for eviction of a tenant. 6. On going through the record I am satisfied that the Petitioner was in occupation in the balance portion of the house which was not used as post office. Initiation of a criminal proceeding is not the appropriate remedy for eviction of a tenant. Assuming that the landlord has a valid ground the remedy lies under the civil law. The tenant in possession was entitled to protection of law so long as he has not been evicted in due course of law. On the facts and in the circumstances, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind judicially while converting the proceeding to one u/s 145 and directing attachment of the property. If there was tension in the locality the learned Magistrate should have proceeded against the person or persons threatening peace and tranquility, u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The short-cut method of taking recourse to Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directing attachment was not the answer. I, therefore, vacate the orders dated 19-2-1983 and 7-3-1983 and direct that the Petitioner be put in possession of the house and the articles takes under zimanama be handed over to him It shall be open to the learned Magistrate to take action u/s 107 or Section 144 of the Code Criminal Procedure if peace and tranquility be threatened. The revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed