This is a peculiar way of exercising powers under sections 133 and 144 Cr. P. C. by a Magistrate and the way the order has been passed I deem it proper to direct the learned District Magistrate, Gauhati to look into the matter. 2. The opposite party No. 1 herein filed a petition on 11.1.90 under section 133 read with section 144 Cr. P. C. before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Kamrup at Gauliati and the petition was registered as Case No. 14 M/90. The petition was transferred to the Court of Sri J. N. Bhuyan. In the petition, the petitioner stated that he was an aged man and used to reside in the land described in the petition. It was further stated that there is a 'Tin Chah" wherein the opposite party i. e. the petitioner before this Court kept some unhygienic articles. According to the said petitioner the room was kept under loc 3 and key for about 5 months and few days prior to filing of the said petition bad smell was coming from the said room. It was further alleged in the petition that foul play might have been committed and that the room needed immediate replacement of the Tin Chali and also necessary repairs. It was further pleaded by the petitioner in that petition that the room was urgently required for the use by his unemployed children and that where about of the petitioner herein was not known. It was prayed that necessary direction may be issued to the Paltanbazar Police Station to break open the lock, make a list of the articles inside the room and to remove these articles and allow the said petitioner to use the room for his own purpose after necessary repairs and renovation. In other words in that petition the eviction of the petitioner herein was prayed through police help by invoking the provisions of sections 133 and 144 Cr. P. C. 3. On 11.1.90 the learned Magistrate drew up a proceeding under section 133 Cr. P. C. directing the second party i.e. the petitioner herein to remove the goods from the room on or before 1S.1.90 and to file show cause if any. P. C. 3. On 11.1.90 the learned Magistrate drew up a proceeding under section 133 Cr. P. C. directing the second party i.e. the petitioner herein to remove the goods from the room on or before 1S.1.90 and to file show cause if any. It was further directed that in the event of failure to comply with the order on the date fixed, and as a measure of urgency police was to remove the goods from the room by opening the lock and 'making custody of goods found within the said room on the next date.' On 23J.90 the learned Magistrate perused the police report dated 19.1.(-0 wherein it was stated that they could not execute the order in absence of the second party i.e. the present petitioner and the room in question was under lock and key. The learned Magistrate noted that the police report was silent about the existence of goods stored in the room from where bad smell coming out as per prayer of the petitioner. Officer-in-charge, Paltanbazar Police Station was directed to submit further report accordingly. On 29.1.90 the learned Magistrate recorded that the first party was present and second party was absent without any step. The Magistrate perused the report of the Police dated 25.1.90 wherein it was stated that 'goods inside the room were in unhygienic condition and dangerous to life. The learned Magistrate directed as follows : "The Officer-in-charge, Paltanbazar Police Station is to take steps to remove the goods from the room as per preliminary order and submit report." 4. In the present petition it has been alleged that the petitioner is a tenant of a room under the opposite party No. l i.e. the petitioner in the above petition before the learned Executive Magis­trate and that the present petitioner is doing his business in the said room. The petitioner has specifically stated that no notice of the above proceeding was served on him and it is also false that he was avoiding notice. It has also been urged that from the list of articles found in the room after removing the lock it would appear that there was no chance of bad smell coming out from the said room. It has also been urged that from the list of articles found in the room after removing the lock it would appear that there was no chance of bad smell coming out from the said room. It has been stated in the petition that after removing the goods, the opposite party No.3 ie Sub-Inspector of Paltanbazar Police Station put another lock in the room and handed over the key to the landlord. It has been specifically stated that the landlord with previous arrangement with the learned Executive Magistrate and the said Police Officer got the proceeding drawn up with the intention of evicting the petitioner from the room and that the learned Executive Magistrate exercised his powers with a malafide intention and acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the entire proceeding may be quashed and the possession of the room may be handed over to the present petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the learned trial Court. 6. From the record it appears that no notice was issued to the present petitioner and the statement of the learned trial Court recorded on 29.1.9J that the second party absent without any step is absolutely incorrect. As no notice was served on the present petitioner the question of his appearance did not arise. 7. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is no order passed by the learned trial Court for delivery of the possession of the room in question to the landlord. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel inasmuch as the order of removing the goods by breaking open the lock is itself illegal and that apart in the affidavit -in opposition filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police Paltanbazar Police Station I find that the room was handed over to the landlord and this fact has was not been disputed at the bar. In the present petition there is clear allegation of malafide against the learned Magistrate, but it has not been denied. Although the petitioner has prayed for compensation, in this proceeding I cannot pass any order at this stage and I leave the petitioner to seek redress in the appropriate Court. 8. In the present petition there is clear allegation of malafide against the learned Magistrate, but it has not been denied. Although the petitioner has prayed for compensation, in this proceeding I cannot pass any order at this stage and I leave the petitioner to seek redress in the appropriate Court. 8. Under section 133 Cr.P.C. Magistrate has to make a conditional order requiring a person causing obstruction or nuisance etc. to remove such obstruction or nuisance within the time fixed in the order. Section 134 provides for manner of service of the said order, and section 135 im­poses a duty on such a person to obey the instruction within such time or to appear before the Court and show cause. According to section 136 Cr.P.C. in case of failure to do so the person is liable to be penalised under section 188 1PC. Section 137 Cr.P.C. inter alia, provides that if a person on whom notices has been served appears, the Magistrate may question him and in case of denial an enquiry has to be made under section 138 Cr.P.C. This section further provides that if there is any reliable evidence in support of such denial the Magistrate shall stay the proceeding until the matter is decided by competent: Court. 9. In the case in hand ignoring all the above provisions of the Cr.P.C. and without serving notice on the party the learned Magistrate hurriedly passed the order directing that the room should be opened by breaking open the lock and goods should be removed. All the orders passed by the learned Court were in complete violation of the provisions cont­ained in the Cr.P.C. and as such-these orders will are not sustainable in law. 10. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. l has urged that the statement that the present petitioner is running a shop in the room is absolutely false as he is an employee and the licence of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation to run the shop not is in the name of the present petitioner. This is not proper forum to go into this aspect of the matter. 11. I also find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the list of articles reco­vered from the room there is no chance of bad smell coming from the room. This is not proper forum to go into this aspect of the matter. 11. I also find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the list of articles reco­vered from the room there is no chance of bad smell coming from the room. I entirely agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceeding was initiated only to get possession of the room without going through the normal procedure of law. 12. There cannot be any dispute that with the help of orders passed under section 133 Cr.P.C. or 144 Cr.P.C. a landlord cannot evict a tenant from the possession of the house. 13. From what has been stated above I find that the entire pro­ceeding is illegal and accordingly I quashed the same including the orders passed on different dates. The Officer-in-charge, Paltanbazar Police Station is directed to hand over possession of the room to the petitioner within a week and I further direct that the Executive Magistrate Shri .T.N.Bhuyan shall personally ensure that this order may be implemented forthwith. A copy of the order may be sent to the learned District Magistrate, Gauhati. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Let the record alongwith a copy of the order may be sent to the learned Magistrate immediately.