By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of two revision petitions registered as Criminal Revision Nos. 331/88. and No. 335/88. Facts are as follows :- Jajneswar Mahanta, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 335/88 is the landlord of the room in dispute and Abinash Mahanta, opposite party in the above Criminal Revision is his monthly tenant and he is ruining restaurant business. The tenant failed to pay rent from 1.7.86 and a lawyer's notice was served on the tenant. The landlord filed a petition before the learned Additional District Magist­rate, Giuhati in October, 1987 alleging inter alia, that the tenant failed to pay the rent, closed the said restaurant for 2 months keeping the room under lock an 1 key and left the place without any intimation to the landlord. Other allegations were made in the said petition regarding the conduct of the tenant and keeping all furniture, fixtures and utensils in the said room. On the basis of the said petition on 2.11.87, the learned Addl. District Magistrate passed an order observing, inter alia, as follows: "The said room was kept under lock and key since the 2 months back by the tenant without any informing the owner also have not paid the monthly rent to the house owner of the room resulting financial hardship to the owner. However, there is every possible of damages of the Room if there is kept under lock and key indefinitely as where about of the said tenant is also not known." Further the learned Additional District Magistrate directed the Officer-in Charge, Noonmati P. S. to open the room, prepare an inventory of goods if any in the said room in presence of an Executive Magistrate and also directed to keep the goods in zimma of a 3rd party and to be handed over if claimed by the owner. The order were duly complied with. Thereafter, the tenant approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Judge by judgment and order dated 30.6.88 set aside the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate and directed to restore possession of the house to the tenant which was also duly executed by police. As the learned Sessions Judge stayed his order, the learned Additional District Magistrate passed an order for maintenance of status-quo and further directed that 'room should not be handed over to either of the parties'. As the learned Sessions Judge stayed his order, the learned Additional District Magistrate passed an order for maintenance of status-quo and further directed that 'room should not be handed over to either of the parties'. The police reported that as possession has been handed over to the tenant the order could not be executed. Thereafter, on 26.7.88 the learned Additional District Magistrate asked the Officer-in-Charge, Noonmati P. S. to carry out his order in presence of an Executive Magistrate and further directed the said Officer-in-Charge to prepare the list of articles found in the room and to keep the same in zimma of a 3rd party for safe custody. Against the aforesaid order the tenant has approached this Court by filing the aforesaid revision 331/88. There is no dispute at the Bar that the above orders were passed under the provisions of Police Act, 1861, hereinafter for short 'the Act'. The landlord has filed Criminal Rev. 335/88 challenging the revisional order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 3. I have stated the facts fully in order to show how an Executive Magistrate by exercising power under Police Act can evict a tenant from a house. This Court has come across such eviction by Magistracy by exercising powers under section 144 Cr. P. C. But this is the first time this Court has come across such eviction by resorting to the provisions of Police Act. There cannot be any dispute for the reasons which I shall presently state that exercise of powers is beyond jurisdiction and has to be set aside by invoking the inherent powers of this Court as in my opinion this is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court by a landlord. 4. Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Police Act, 1861, which are relevant for the present purpose are reproduced below : "25. Police officers to take charge of unclaimed property, and be subject to Magistrate's order as to disposal.-It shall be the duty of every police officer to take charge of all unclaimed property, and to furnish an inventory thereof to the Magistrate of the district The police officers shall be guided as to the disposal of such property by such orders as they shall receive from the Magistrate of the district. 26. 26. Magistrate may detain property and issue proclamation.- (1) The Magistrate of the district may detain the property and issue a proclamation, specifying the articles of which it consists, and requiring any person who has any claim thereto appear and establish his right to the same within six months from the date of such proclamation. (2) The provisions of Section 525 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (X of 1882) shall be applicable to property referred to in this section. 27. Confiscation of property if no claimant appears.- (1) If no person shall within the period allowed, claim such property, or the proceeds thereof, if sold, it may if not already •old under sub-section (2) of the last preceding section, be sold under the orders of the Magistrate of the district. (2) The sale-proceeds of property sold under the preceding sub-section and the proceeds of property sold under section 26 to which no claim has been established shall be at the disposal of the State Government." Section 25 of the Act is clear and unambiguous and by the said section powers are conferred on police to take charge of all unclaimed property. Police has to give an inventory thereof to the Magistrate of the District. Police shall however, dispose of such property in accorda­nce with the orders passed by the Magistrate of the District. In passing such orders the Magistrate of the District has to follow provisions contained in sections 26 and 27 of the Act. 5. Thus it is clear that under the aforesaid section it is for the police to take charge of unclaimed property and in doing so police has to be prima facie satisfied that the property is unclaimed. It is the function of the police to find out if any property is unclaimed or not. The Magistrate of the District gets jurisdiction only when an inventory of the unclaimed property is sent by the police. If any person is of the opinion that any property is unclaimed he may report to police and if any such report is received by the Magistrate of the District it has to be sent to police for enquiry and necessary action. 6. In the case in hand it is the case of the landlord that the tenant kept the restaurant locked only for 2 months. 6. In the case in hand it is the case of the landlord that the tenant kept the restaurant locked only for 2 months. Any property inside of a locked room by no stress of imagination can be said to be unclaimed property. There is also no legal obligation on the part of a tenant to inform the landlord if he keeps his house under lock and key. For non payment of rent, the landlord has to seek remedy in a Civil Court. The observation of the learned Addl. District Magistrate that non payment of rent by the tenant has caused financial hardship to the landlord is absolutely uncalled, for in the present proceeding. I am, therefore of the opinion that the initial order dated 2.11.87 of the learned Additional District Magistrate is liable to be quashed on the ground that the learned Magistrate took into consideration extrane us matters and had no jurisdiction to direct the p lice to open the room and take charge of the articles inside the room. The order is also bad as he had no power to issue direction to keep the goods in zimma of the 3rd party as it is the duty of the police to take charge of all unclaimed property. This order also suffers from illegality in absence of any inventory of unclaimed property from the police as envisaged in section 25 of the Act. The order also suffers from further illegality as the learned Addl. District Magistrate passed the order ex parte without holding that properties inside the room were unclaimed. 7. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the landlord has urged that the petition by the tenant before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and also before this Court is not maintainable as the order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate being an Executive Order is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of higher Tourts. Mr. Phukan has placed reliance in Abdul Shakur vs. Mahadab Prasad, AIR 1930 Lahore 539. I find from the facts of the case that the order was not passed by the Magistrate of the District, but by a Magistrate-in-Charge of the Cantonment. Under the aforesaid sections of the Police Act only Magistrate of the District has power to pass necessary orders and this legal position was noted by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court. Under the aforesaid sections of the Police Act only Magistrate of the District has power to pass necessary orders and this legal position was noted by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that eventually the goods were made over to the owner of the goods. On these facts it was held that the order was passed by the Magistrate as an Executive Officer purporting to act under the Police Act and not as a Court of law. But in the instant case ihe orders were passed by t' e Magistrate of the District on the basis of a lis between the landlord and tenant and I am therefore, of the opimnon that the orders were passed in the judicial capacity by the learned Additional District Magistrate. In Smt. Sundi vs. State, 1956 Vindhya Pradesh 39, it was held that where a Magistrate decides a claim under section 26 of the Police Act is undoubtedly expected to act judicially and a revision application under section 439 Cr. P. C. lies against the order. I respectfully agree with the 8. In Smt. Sundi (supra) it was held that proceeding under Police Act are of a summary nature and any person considering himself aggrieved by order of the Magistrate may establish his right to the properties in Civil Court. Relying of the above law laid down Mr. Phukan has urged that in the case in hand the tenant should approach the Civil Court. The above position of law was stated in connection with an order passed by the Magistrate under section 27 of the Act. Under section 27 of the Act if there is no claim to the property after proclamation is issued under section 26 of the Act, the property can be sold under orders of the Magistrate of the District. But in the case in hand the articles were not sold and on the top of that the tenant put in his claim. So, the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the Act are not attracted to the present case. As no final orders were passed by the Magistrate of the District regarding disposal of the property, asking the tenant to go to Civil Court to establish his case at this stage does not arise. 9. Reliance has been placed by Mr. So, the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the Act are not attracted to the present case. As no final orders were passed by the Magistrate of the District regarding disposal of the property, asking the tenant to go to Civil Court to establish his case at this stage does not arise. 9. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Phukan in Kalloo vs. btate, A. I. R. 1963 M. P. 124, in support of his submission that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. In that case, after filing the case police took charge of the property, the inventory was sent to Additional District Magistrate who in turn sent it to the 1st Class Magistrate, but some how or other instead of going to the 1st Class Magistrate, the case found its way to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge and the final order of dispose of tie property under Police Act was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In that context it was held that it was obvious (from the Police Act) that the learned Sessions Judge does not at all come in the picture according to the scheme of the Act. Thus it appears that in that case the order was not passed by the learned Sessions Judge by exercising his revisional jurisdiction, but was passed as a Court of first instance. So the ratio laid down in the above decision is not relevant for the present purpose. 10. From what has been stated above I hold that the entire proceeding initiated at the instance of the landlord is liable to be quashed which I hereby do. I further direct the Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup to take immediate steps to hand over the possession of the disputed room and also the seized articles to the tenant Abinash Mahanta immediately within a period of 7 days from today. 11. A copy of the order may be sent to the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup forthwith. 12. Both the revision petitions are disposed of Accordingly