JUDGMENT 1. This Crl. Revision Petition is directed against the final order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoor in M. C No. 59/86 purporting to be under S.138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings was initiated under clause (d) of sub-section (i) of S.133. Revision Petitioner is the second respondent in the proceedings. 2. Subject matter of the proceedings is a building which originally belonged to one Sadananda Pai and managed by Prabhakaran Pillai. He is none other than the peternal uncle of the respondent who is the petitioner in the M. C. Counter petitioners 1 to 3 in M. C. No. 59/86 were the tenants occupying different portions of the building for their business purposes. The first counter petitioner in the M.C. stopped his business in the building and vacated the portion in his occupation. Therefore he did not want to contest. The third counter petitioner died. His legal representatives were impleaded. They were also not interested in contesting the claim. The only person who contested the claim was the second counter petitioner who is the petitioner in this Crl. Revision Petition. 3. For the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions and their bona fides, it is necessary to look into the prior history. In 1983 when Sadananda Pai was the owner of the building, himself and the respondent made attempts to have forcible eviction by destroying the building or causing damages to it. Revision petitioner was therefore filed O.S. No. 226/83 before the Munsiff, Pathanamthitta for a permanent injunction against Sadananda Pai. That suit was contested by Sadananda Pai, but ultimately it was decreed granting the injunction prayed for. Ext. D-1 is copy of the judgment. It was then that the building was purchased by the respondent from Sadananda Pai. After that also attempts continued to have forcible eviction by causing damages to the building. Revision petitioner was therefore constrained to file another suit before the Munsiff as O.S. No. 410/89 for injunction. That suit is even now pending. 4. It was in the background of these facts and circumstances that the respondent filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoor as if he is the representative of the public alleging that the building is in a dangerous condition and that it is likely to fall and cause danger to the public. That suit is even now pending. 4. It was in the background of these facts and circumstances that the respondent filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoor as if he is the representative of the public alleging that the building is in a dangerous condition and that it is likely to fall and cause danger to the public. Immediately after getting the petition the learned Magistrate directed the concerned Executive Engineer, presumably under S.139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make a local investigation and submit a report. The Executive Engineer instead of making an investigation by himself, directed an investigation by his subordinate Asst. Executive Engineer. He in turn directed his subordinate Asst. Engineer. After local inspection Ext. P-1 report was submitted before the Executive Engineer who in turn filed it before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. On getting satisfaction under Ext. P-1 report the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a conditional order purporting to be under S.133 directing the respondent himself (petitioner in the M.C.) to demolish the building on or before 15th January 1987 or to appear and show cause. The respondent who is the petitioner in the M.C. entered appearance and stated that he is not in a position to demolish the building as different portions of the building are in the possession of tenants. Therefore the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the three counter petitioners occupying portions of the building. It was then that the revision petitioner entered appearance and filed his objection stating that the building is not in a dilapidated condition and that the petition is only a ruse to get the tenants evicted. 5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate thereafter proceeded to take evidence. The Executive Engineer was examined as P.W. 1. Ext. P-1 report was proved through him. Respondent was examined as P.W. 2. P.W. 3 is a local mason and P.W. 4 is an independent person belonging to the locality. Ext. P-2 is a plan and sketch produced along with Ext. P-1. Ext. P-3 is the sale deed in favour of the respondent. First counter petitioner in the M.C. was examined as C.P.W. 1. C.P.W. 2 and 3 are the two advocate Commissioners deputed by the civil court in the two injunction suits filed by the revision petitioner. Ext. D-1 is copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 226/83. Ext. P-1. Ext. P-3 is the sale deed in favour of the respondent. First counter petitioner in the M.C. was examined as C.P.W. 1. C.P.W. 2 and 3 are the two advocate Commissioners deputed by the civil court in the two injunction suits filed by the revision petitioner. Ext. D-1 is copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 226/83. Ext. D-2 is the sketch and mahazar prepared by C.P.W. 3. These are the items of evidence available in the case. So also the learned Magistrate made a local inspection and prepared a memorandum. That is not an exhibit. 6. Ultimately, considering these items of evidence including the memorandum of local inspection the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the building is in a dilapidated condition which requires demolition and that repairs will not suffice. Therefore the conditional order issued by him was made absolute and the revision petitioner was directed under S.138 and 141(1) to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the order. The respondent was directed to demolish the building at his own cost within a week from the date from which the building is vacated by the revision petitioner. This is the order under challenge before this court. 7. For reasons more than one, the order passed by the Divisional Magistrate cannot stand. The circumstances clearly indicate that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under S.133 was invoked mainly for the purpose of getting the tenants evicted. In fact as P.W. 1 the respondent admitted this fact in the box when he said that he filed the petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate only because he was not able to get the tenants evicted otherwise and that his object in filing the petition was only to evict the tenants. That admission of the respondent is further substantiated by the fact that there is a permanent injunction decree against his predecessor and that there is another injunction suit pending against him. In those two suits two Commissioners were deputed. They visited the premises and submitted Exts. D-2 and D-3. Exts. D-2 and D-3 when taken along with the evidence of C.P.W. 2 and 3 show that the building is not in a condition which requires demolition. 8. The building is admittedly in an area where the Rent Control legislation is applicable. In those two suits two Commissioners were deputed. They visited the premises and submitted Exts. D-2 and D-3. Exts. D-2 and D-3 when taken along with the evidence of C.P.W. 2 and 3 show that the building is not in a condition which requires demolition. 8. The building is admittedly in an area where the Rent Control legislation is applicable. In a Rent Control area a landlord is entitled to evict a tenant from a building if the transactions comes under the provisions of the Act only by resort to the Act. One of the conditions on which a landlord is entitled to evict a tenant is proof of the fact that the building is in such a condition that it requires reconstruction. In such a contingency the landlord will have to establish that he bona fide requires reconstruction. ' He must also satisfy the court that he has got the plan and licence if any and capacity to rebuild and that the proposal is not a ruse for eviction. It is true that as held in the decision in Porinchu v. Shanmugham 1987 (1) KLT 742 powers under S.133 could be invoked by the Executive Magistrate irrespective of the provisions contained in the Rent Control legislation because both operate on different fields. But it has to be understood that object of S.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not eviction of a tenant. S.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not concerned with private disputes between the parties. What is sought to be achieved by that provision is abatement of a public nuisance. That provision cannot be misused for, the purpose of achieving personal benefits, which could be had under the relevant provisions of other statutes. It appears that in this case what is sought to be achieved is not abatement of a public nuisance but indication of a private right namely, eviction of the tenants by a shortcut. 9. In order to invoke the provisions of S.133 it is necessary that the Executive Magistrate must have sufficient information and on taking evidence he must consider that any building is in such a condition that it is likely to fall down and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by and that this nuisance could be abated only by removal of the building. Even such satisfaction was not available to the Magistrate. The only evidence on the side of the respondent in that respect was Ext. P-1 and the evidence of the Executive Engineer Ext. P-1 report and the evidence of the Executive Engineer could not have been relied on by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the face of the admission of the Executive Engineer that he did not visit the property or inspect the building. The persons who prepared Ext. P-1 were not examined. The evidence of P.W. 1 who, according to his own admission, did not have any direct knowledge could not have been accepted for that purpose. Without examining the person who prepared Ext. P-1 that report could not have been used as evidence. The depositions of the other witnesses examined by the respondent are absolutely useless in considering the condition of the building. The evidence of the two advocate-commissioners examined as C.P.W. 2 and 3 and Exts. D-2 and D-3 proved by them showed the condition of the building to be such that it does not require demolition on the ground that it is dangerous to the public. Therefore it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate could not have had the satisfaction for taking action under S.133. 10. Probably for the purpose of filling up the lacuna in this respect the Sub Divisional Magistrate made a local inspection. In doing so he did not give notice to the parties as provided under S.310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He simply visited the building on his own and prepared a memorandum stating the condition of the building. In the memorandum he stated that the condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition. The impression gathered on local inspection and the opinion mentioned in the memorandum were used as evidence for the purpose of passing the final order. He was not justified in doing so. The Magistrate cannot use his impression gathered at the time of local inspection or the facts noted by him in the memorandum as substitute for evidence. He can only use it for appreciating the evidence at the enquiry or trial. In this respect also be committed an illegality either knowingly or unknowingly. That has also vitiated the order passed by him. 11. He can only use it for appreciating the evidence at the enquiry or trial. In this respect also be committed an illegality either knowingly or unknowingly. That has also vitiated the order passed by him. 11. As I have earlier stated, there must be a preliminary order under S.133 to remove the building which is in a dangerous condition and a notice to appear and show cause. So far as the three counter petitioners in the M.C. are concerned, there was no such conditional order against them and they were not asked to show cause. The conditional order was passed only against the respondent who was the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and at whose instance action was taken. He entered appearance and said that he is not in a position to demolish the building. It was only then that notice was issued to the three counter petitioners. Against those three counter petitioners no conditional order was passed. Without such a conditional order the Magistrate was not entitled to exercise jurisdiction as against them for an enquiry and a final order directing demolition of the building. 12. It is evident from the facts stated above that the provisions of S.133, 137, 138 and 141 were misused by the respondent and the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In fact the Magistrate did not pass a proper conditional order. He did not conduct an enquiry under S.137. No satisfaction was entered by the Magistrate as provided in S.137. The Magistrate may be justified in proceeding to have an enquiry under S.138 only after the enquiry under S.137 is over. These formalities were also not complied. I do not think that it is necessary to go into the matter any further. 13. I am fully satisfied that the provisions of S.133 were misused by the respondent for the purpose of getting eviction of his tenants. The petition filed by him before the Sub Divisional Magistrate was not supported by bona fides. The order sought to be revised cannot stand scrutiny in the eye of law. The Crl. Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is vacated.