N. N. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against order dated 14-12-1984 recorded by Sri H. C. Mittal, learned Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision no. 285 of 1984 arising out of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in Case No. 28/11 of 1983. Sri Hem Chandra Mittal, Addi. City Magistrate Meerut had declared Manik Chand Manglik, revisionist-opposite party No. 2 in possession of the shop in dispute no. 347 Dhol Ki street Sadar Bazar, Meerut. That order was reversed in revision by the impugned order. ( 2 ) THESE proceedings were initiated on 27-5-1982 by Sri Murari Krishna Tayal, Opposite Party No. 1 vide application dated 27-5-1982 submitted to the City Magistrate, Meerut under section 145 sub-clause (1) Cr. P. C. with the allegations that he was owner of the firm Tayal and Company and Tailors situated in Sadar Bazar, Meerut Cantonment and opposite party Manik Chand Manglik was his employee. On account of old age and intimate relations amongst the parties he reposed implicit confidence in Manik Chand Manghk. It was nine months prior to his filing application that he fell ill. Manik Chand Manglik took advantage of the old age and illness of opposite party No. 1 and wanted to take possession over the shop in dispute which led to apprehension of breach of peace by an incident which took place on 21-4-1982 when Manik Chand forcibly asked him to quit the shop. Subhas Chand, P. W. /2, Bhola Nath, Chunni Lal, etc. witnessed that incident. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 also lodged a report about that incident at police station on 23-4-1982. ( 4 ) HE also moved an application on 15-5-1982 to S. S. P. , Meerut. On that application the City Magistrate directed S. O. Police to enquire into the matter. On application dated 14-6-1982 by opposite party No. 1 both parties were heared and learned City Magistrate inspected the shop in question on the same day at 1. 30 p. m. A preliminary order was drawn under section 146, sub- clause (1), Cr. P. C. by which the shop in dispute was attached and sealed on 28-6- 1982. ( 5 ) PARTIES adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions. Murad Krishna Tayal examined himself as P. W. 1, Subhas Chand, P. W. 2 and Ujjar as P. W. 3. P. C. by which the shop in dispute was attached and sealed on 28-6- 1982. ( 5 ) PARTIES adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions. Murad Krishna Tayal examined himself as P. W. 1, Subhas Chand, P. W. 2 and Ujjar as P. W. 3. Manik Chand Manglik examined himself as D. W. 1, Rajendra Kumar as D. W. 2. Manik Chand also filed various documents to show his possession mcluding the receipts for payment of rent, etc. Income tax and profession tax registers; certain receipts of electricity board and bill of hydel department, copy of inspection notes by Labour Inspector and Deputy Labour Commissioner, etc. were filed to show that all these documents were in his name and evidenced his continuous possession. Electricity and water bills and notices issued by the various departments were also issued in his name and he paid the aforesaid bills since 1957. He further maintained that opposite party No. 1 was an artisan employed by him as a cutter and had admitted on 9-9-1961 in Misc. case No. 122 of 1961 pertaining to Execution case No. 249 of 1961 that he was not the owner of the disputed shop but was simply a cutter of Manik Chand as was maintained by Manik Chand in these proceedings. At that time the stand of opposite party No. 1 was that the warrant of arrest had been wrongly issued for recovery of the decretal amount. Smt. Maya Devi was the decree holder. In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence the learned Magistrate upheld the possession of revisionist over the shop in dispute and restrained opposite party No. 1 from interfering in the possession of the revisionist. Possession was ordered to be restored to revisionist by Inspector of police, Sadar Bazar, Meerut. ( 6 ) LEARNED revisional court found the aforesaid order as illegal and against the decision of this Court in Islam Khan v. Munir) He found that the order recorded by the Magistrate resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice and therefore was liable to be quashed. Thus the impugned order was drawn. ( 7 ) I have heard Sri P. K. Jam, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 at length. On behalf of revisionist my attention was invited to the documents filed by the revisionist which are annexures Nos. Thus the impugned order was drawn. ( 7 ) I have heard Sri P. K. Jam, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 at length. On behalf of revisionist my attention was invited to the documents filed by the revisionist which are annexures Nos. 1 to 8 annexed with the affidavit of Sri Manik Chand filed on 18-11-1985. I have already referred the gist of the said documents which impelled the learned S. D. M. to record the order in favour of the revisionist. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist further argued that the said finding of fact recorded by learned Magistrate in proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. was binding on the revisional court who was not justified in reversal thereof. This over whelming documentary evidence on record is not easily explicable by the mere allegations of Opposite party No. 1 that he was old and treated the revisionist as his son and implicit reliance was placed in him by opposite party No. 1 who betrayed the confidence reposed in him and got these documents prepared to lay claim over this shop. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist also relied upon Paras Nath Shukia v. State of UP. and others, in support of the assertion that where there was any dispute relating to right to run a petrol pump or any other business such dispute did not relate to immovable property and did not attract section 145, Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) IN the instant case there is no dispute about tailoring business but about possession of the shop in which this business is being carried out. So it was a dispute relating to immovable property and section 145, Cr. P. C. was in point. ( 11 ) IT is correct that a revisional court bas to sharingly interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Magistrate. However, it could have interfered only where: 1. Necessary parties were left out or wrong persons were made parties. 2. Where the Magistrate refused to adduce evidence tendered to him. 3. Where the Magistrates finding of fact regarding possession was perverse or contrary to a mass or unrebutted evidence. 4. Where no order in writing as required by sub-clause (1) of section 145, Cr. P. C. was drawn. 5. Where the Magistrate refused to issue process for the attendance of the material witnesses. 6. 3. Where the Magistrates finding of fact regarding possession was perverse or contrary to a mass or unrebutted evidence. 4. Where no order in writing as required by sub-clause (1) of section 145, Cr. P. C. was drawn. 5. Where the Magistrate refused to issue process for the attendance of the material witnesses. 6. Where the Magistrate discredited the evidence altogether and based his decision merely upon his local enquiry. 7. Where the Magistrate declared the possession with a party who had long been out of possession. ( 12 ) ON a careful perusal of the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case I do not find any merits in this revision for following reasons. ( 13 ) ADMITTEDLY the occupant of this shop is running a tailoring business under the Style of Tayal and Co. and Tayal Tailors. The account books, etc. are maintained at this shop under the said style. Manik Chand Manglik revisionist would have been the last person to have carried this business under the Style of Tayal and Company. It does not appeal to common sense that he was running his tailoring business in the name of his employee Murari Krishna Tayal who was simply a cutter at his shop. D. L. P. No. 7 alleged that he was carrying on this tailoring business in this shop under the aforesaid style and Manik Chand Manglik was being treated by him as his son and happened to be his employee for the last 30 years or so. As he had no male issue and was well advanced in age so he reposed implicit faith in the revisionist. He also dined with the revisionist on account of his old age and ill health and cordial relationship between them; even the fans and machines, etc. installed at the shop belonged to him. The revisionist in his statement admitted that he learnt the tailoring work from Murari Krishna Tayal but added that Tayal worked at his shop up to 1956 only as a cutter. He-was confronted with the account books maintained at the shop about the transactions conducted in 1981. The cash register, etc. were in the name of Tayal and company and he himself made entries on 3-11-1981, 8-11-1981, 28-11-1981, 23-11-1981 and 25-11-1981 showing payments of several amounts as payments to him in the salary register meant for employees at the shop. He-was confronted with the account books maintained at the shop about the transactions conducted in 1981. The cash register, etc. were in the name of Tayal and company and he himself made entries on 3-11-1981, 8-11-1981, 28-11-1981, 23-11-1981 and 25-11-1981 showing payments of several amounts as payments to him in the salary register meant for employees at the shop. In view of these written admissions learned. Revisional court was justified in holding that the status of revisionist in this shop was that of an employee and not of the master and all these documents were procured by him in the same capacity. He himself made entries showing receipt of payments as an employee at the shop like other employees in the shop. ( 14 ) THERE is not a single entry in the accounts book maintained at the shop to bear out the contention of the revisionist that Murari Krishana Tayal was his employee. As an expert tailor master M. K. Tayal must have done the task of the cutter of the cloth as it needed an expertise. Revisionist admitted that even upto 25-5-1983 i. e. after the initiation of these proceedings on 27- 5-1982 this shop was known as Tayal and company. So this is a strong circumstance which is a strong circumstance which is a pointer to the truth that the shop was occupied by opposite party No. 1 as a tenant. and the faith reported by him in revisionist was simply betrayed in this manner as observed by learned revisional court. ( 15 ) AS regards the statement dated 9-9-1981 in Misc. Case No. 122 of 1961 arising out of execution case No. 249 of 1981 it was not put to opposite party No. 1 in cross-examination. It appears that in order to save himself from arrest in execution of the decree of Smt. Maya Devi such statement might have been made by O. P. No. I wrongly. That statement is not admissible in these proceedings as revisionist was not a party thereto. ( 16 ) IN S. R. Srinivasa Thathachariar v. Pitchai Huthu Moopan and others it was posited: The pannai servants cannot claim independent possession because this possession is only that of their master. The possession of an agent or a servant which is permissive cannot give him a locus standi as against his principal or master. ( 16 ) IN S. R. Srinivasa Thathachariar v. Pitchai Huthu Moopan and others it was posited: The pannai servants cannot claim independent possession because this possession is only that of their master. The possession of an agent or a servant which is permissive cannot give him a locus standi as against his principal or master. The possession that can he pleaded in a proceeding under section. 145, Cr. P. C. must be possession based on a claim of right to possession. ( 17 ) A similar point came up for consideration in Islam Khan v. Munir. It was pointed out that possession of a servant as against his master could not be treated as possession contemplated by section 145, Cr. P. C. In this view of the matter I find that learned revisional court rightly stigmatised the finding recorded by Magistrate as perverse. ( 18 ) IN the result I do not find any merit in this revision which is dismissed. Interim order dated 2/1/1985 is vacated herewith. Re vision dismissed .