R. P. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 30/11/1983 passed by the then Third Additional Sessions Judge, Saharan pur, in Criminal Revision No. 358 of 1983, allowing the revision and setting aside the judgment and order, dated 14/11/1983, passed by tile then City Magistrate, Saharanpur, in Case No. 90 of 1981. ( 2 ) THE facts, giving rise to this revision, are that Fateh Mohammad, the present applicant, moved an application before the City Magistrate, Saharanpur, on 42 1980 alleging that he was in possession as tenant of Shop No. 14/1146/1 and carried on the business of iron and tin therein. On 23/1/1980, the opposite-party No. 2, Mohammad Yasin, along with were others, Crime on his shop and attempted to occupy it forcibly. The police intervened and both the parties were taken into custody as there arose apprehension of breach of peace. Mohammad Yasin put his lock on the shop over the lock of the applicants. The Magistrate ordered the then S. O. , Kotwali, to enquire and report with respect to the allegations made in the application of Fateh Mohammad. The same day, police submitted a report to the City Magistrate that there was apprehension of breach of place as Mohammad Yasin and others were out to forcibly take possession of shop No. 14/1146/1, wherein Patch Mohammad carried on the business of iron and tin. Being satisfied on the police report that there was apprehension of breach of peace due to the dispute over the possession of the said shop, the Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 15/2/1980. The parties were called upon to submit their written statement and adduce evidence with respect to possession over the said shop. The parties filed their written statement and adduced their evidence oral and documentary. The Magistrate, after considering the evidence of the parties, held that Fateh Mohammad, the present applicant was in possession over the disputed shop on the date of preliminary order and two months prior to it and directed the opposite-party No 2, Mohammad Yasin not to interfere with the possession of Fateh Mohammad over the said shop until Fateh Mohammad was evicted in due course of law. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, Mohammad Yasin preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, who re-appreciated the whole evidence of either party, allowed the revision, set aside the aforesaid order of the Magistrate, declared Mohammad Yasin in possession over the shop and directed that his possession shall not be disturbed except in due course of law. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the present applicant Fateh Mohammad has preferred this revision. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the revisional court ought not to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those of the trial court unless there has been miscarriage of justice. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party No. 2 contended that the judgment of the Magistrate was as a result of misreading of evidence as he failed to discuss the rent receipts, electric bills and the judgment of the rent control authority which definitely led to inference that the opposite party No. 2 was in possession of the said shop on the relevant dates. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence that was believed by the Magistrate and bas believed the evidence that was disbelieved by the Magistrate without recording any finding that the conclusion drawn by the Magistrate and the reasoning given by him were perverse or there was any glaring defect in the procedure or any manifest error on the point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage pf justice. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the case of the applicants that they got the possession of the disputed shop by paying the Pagri of Rs. 5,000. 00 to Mohammad Yasin, the opposite-party No. 2, and that the electric meter continued in the name of Mohammad Yasin, and therefore, the electric bills were bound to be in the name of Mohammad Yasin. 5,000. 00 to Mohammad Yasin, the opposite-party No. 2, and that the electric meter continued in the name of Mohammad Yasin, and therefore, the electric bills were bound to be in the name of Mohammad Yasin. The learned Judge has expressed surprise to find the name of Fateh Mohammad in the assessment register of the Municipal Board It is well explained that the Inspector of the Municipal Board made spot inspection of the shop in November, 1979 and January, 1980 in order to prepare revised assessment register and he found Fateh Mohammad, the applicant, in possession over the shop and hence entry to that effect was made otherwise, the name of Mohammad Yasin came to be recorded in a routine manner. The Magistrate has rightly disbelieved Smt. Bhuri, the owner of the shop, and the rent receipts in view of the contradictions in her statement and that of the scribe of these receipts. Smt. Bhuri stated that she never affixed her thumb impression on the rent receipts while the rent receipts bore thumb impression and the scribe stated that he always obtained thumb impression of Smt. Bhuri on the rent receipts. The original rent receipts were not filed before the Magistrate. Smt. Bhuri also stated that she had not visited the disputed shop since a year or one- and-a half years. The electric bills, the rent receipts and the evidence of Smt. Bhuri mayor may not entire Mohammad Yasin to the possession over the shop, but they cannot be the evidence of actual physical possession of Mohammad Yasin over the disputed shop. It is the actual physical possession which is material in a case under section 145, Cr. P. C. The disputed shop is registered in the name of Fateh Mohammad. Fateh Mohammad was challaned under section 34, Police Act for keeping the articles of the shop outside the shop and was ordered to pay a fine and the receipt of the payment of fine has been filed by him. The entry of his name in the revised assessment register of the Municipal Board based on the spot inspection by the Inspector of the Municipal Board all go to show that Fateh Mohammad was in actual physical possession of the disputed shop. The entry of his name in the revised assessment register of the Municipal Board based on the spot inspection by the Inspector of the Municipal Board all go to show that Fateh Mohammad was in actual physical possession of the disputed shop. The copy of the order of the rent control authority dated 24/3/1983 of Case No. 12 of 1980; Iqbal v. Yasin shows that one Iqbal had moved an application for declaring the shop in suit to be vacant, and, in that case, it was declared by the rent control authority that it was not a vacant shop and was in possession of Mohammad Yasin. This order appears to have weighed with the learned Judge in coming to the conclusion that Mohammad Yasin was in possession over the shop. ( 9 ) IN a Division Bench case of this Court in Mirza Sami UIIah Beg v. District Magistrate, Lucknow1, it has been held: Section 14 is a purely declaratory provision, which states the legal position if certain factual situations are made out. It or any other provision of this Act does not confer power or jurisdiction on the District Magistrate or even the Prescribed Authority to entertain any proceeding with a view to making a declaration contemplated by section 14. The District Magistrate or any other officer authorised by him as well as the Prescribed Authority constituted under this Act are all authorities with limited jurisdictions only in respect of matters for which express provisions has been made in the Act. They are not courts of general jurisdiction so as to entitle them to entertain proceedings for which no power or jurisdiction has been made to empower either the District Magistrate or the Prescribed Authority to entertain proceedings only to make a declaration. Section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, under which the application was made by Mohammad Iqbal to the Rent Control Authority, provisions for orders of allotment or release to be made by the rent control authority. Under this section, the rent control authority could either make the allotment or refuse the allotment on the ground that the premises was not vacant. The section does not contemplate proceedings by which the rent control authority may declare as to who was the tenant in possession in the premises at that time. Under this section, the rent control authority could either make the allotment or refuse the allotment on the ground that the premises was not vacant. The section does not contemplate proceedings by which the rent control authority may declare as to who was the tenant in possession in the premises at that time. Therefore, the said judgment appears to be a judgment by the rent control authority without any jurisdiction. Any way, the Magistrate is not bound by any law to give his finding in accordance with a decision regardless of the actual evidence. If the parties satisfied him that other party is in actual physical possession, he is bound by law to declare him in possession. The judgment of the Rent Control Authority cannot be equated to the judgment of a competent civil court and can have no binding effect and it was, therefore, rightly ignored by the Magistrate. The revisional court should not interfere only on the ground that a different view is possible. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has re-appreciated the evidence of the parties and has taken a different view of the whole matter. ( 10 ) ORDINARILY, the revisional court ought not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those of the trial court arising. out of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. for the reasons: (i) that the aggrieved party can obtain full and adequate relief in the civil court lot competent jurisdiction; (ii) that an order under section 145 (4), Cr. P. C. is just an interim arrangement to avoid breach of the peace till the rival parties got them right, title and interest determined by a competent civil court and (iii) that the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P C. relate to disputes where there is likelihood of the breach of peace. The proceedings have the positive nexus with public tranquility and they need earliest disposal to allay fears, anxieties and panic of the contending parties. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the revision succeeds. ( 11 ) THE revision is, therefore, allowed and the order, dated 30/11/1983, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur is set aside. The order of the City Magistrate, Saharanpur, dated 14/11/1983 is sustained. Revision allowed. .