JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---The point for consideration in this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code) is the legality or otherwise of a Metropolitan Magistrate's refusal to revoke orders purporting to fall under sub-section (1) of sections 145 and 146 of the Code. 2. Room No. 29, Sukh Sadan, Denawadi---hereinafter referred to as "Room No. 29" was in the occupation of Radhabai surve as a tenant. Radhabai lived in the room with her son Dattatraya. The mother and son having died, a dispute arose between two factions referred to as "parties Nos. 1 and 2". Party No. 1 claimed to be a sub-tenant of Radhabai residing in the room and doing business in pickles. Party No. 2 claimed to have become entitled to use the room by virtue of having performed the obsequies of Dattatraya. The L.T. Marg Police Station on 31st December, 1990 submitted a report in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 28 pleading that room No. 29 had become a bone of contention between the two parties, that party No. 1 had lodged a report against party No. 2 on 14-9-1990, that the said party was in possession upto 13-9-1990 and that both the parties were bent upon taking recourse to force to have their own way in respect of the possession of the room. The Police Station therefore, sought orders for sealing of the room until the learned Magistrate could rule upon either party's entitlement to possession. The learned Magistrate on 17-1-1991 made orders falling under sections 14(1) and 146(1) of the Code. The parties submitted their written statements. The case of party No. 1 was that he was in lawful possession of the room, that partyNo. 2 had forcibly taken possession on or about 13-9-1990 and that party No. 1 was entitled to restoration of possession. This version was accepted by the Police Station sponsoring the proceeding. Party No. 2, apart from other submissions, contended that the proceedings be dropped as on the showing of the Police Station and party No. 1 themselves, the dispossession of party No. 1 had taken place on 13-9-1990 i.e., more than two months prior to the moving of the Magsitrate by the sponsoring Police Station. In reply, party No. 1 contended that he had moved the police on the day next after being forcibly evicted from room No. 29. In reply, party No. 1 contended that he had moved the police on the day next after being forcibly evicted from room No. 29. It was not his fault that the police submitted a report more than two months after 14-9-1990. The delay occasioned by the police did not come in the way of his entitlement to restoration of possession under the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 145. This contention having been sustained by the learned Magistrate, party No. 2 has moved this Court under section 482 of the Code. 3. Counsel representing the parties re-agitate the stands taken by them before the learned Magistrate. The point is not free from difficulty and I had best begin with a scrutiny of sections 145 and 146 to the extent relevant for the purposes of this judgment. 4. Sections 145 and 146 occur in part of the Code entitled "maintenance of public order and tranquility" more specifically sub-titled "disputes as to immovable property". Even a cursory perusal of the sections will suffice to show that the object thereof is to enable the taking of preventive measures, the primary object being to preserve peace and and tranquility. The police have not been given powers to resolve a dispute in regard to the factum or right to possess. A dispute on this can lead to a flare-up and therefore, the statute provides for the intervention of a Magistrate. The Magistrate is enjoined by sub-section (4) of section 145 to disregard "the merits or the claims of the parties to a right to possess". He is to rivet his attention to the limited point viz. "whether any and which of the parties was in possession on the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1)". The Proviso enables the Magistrate to consider a party dispossessed (a) within two months of the receipt of the report of the police officer or other information by him or (b) after that date and before he makes can order under section 145(1) as if it "had been in possession on the date of the order under section 145(1)". Sub-section (6) requires a Magistrate to make a declaration as to which party is entitled to possession and forbidding all disturbance of such possession. Sub-section (6) requires a Magistrate to make a declaration as to which party is entitled to possession and forbidding all disturbance of such possession. The declaration an be accompanied by an order for restoration of possession to a party whom he holds to have been unlawfully dispossessed within the period contemplated by sub-section (4). Section 146(1) provides for an attachment and sealing in cases of emergency. 5. From the above analysis it is clear that the Magistrate has no power to go into a case of dispossession beyond two months of his being moved. It makes no difference that such a move is by a report of the police officer or other information. It matters not that the delay is not occassioned by delay in the aggrieved party's approach to the police. It is no consequence that the police had many other and good reasons for the delay in reporting to the Magistrate. The Magistrate can act only if moved within two months after the dispossession or a date falling in between the receipt of the report or information and the issuance of an order under section 145(1). Mr. Chitnis argues that a view such as this penalises the honest and trsuting citizen who depends on the police to get redress. I cannot but express my agreement with the unjustness of the citizen being made to depend upon the over-burdened, and on occasions an indolent medium. But there is no other way to construe the provisions. The two months period cannot be reckoned from the date of approach to the police. Nor is this delay something condonable by a magistrate. Where the stipulated period has gone the aggrieved person's remedy is a suit. So far as the Magistrate is concerned he has to rule on the factum of possession and make a declaration in favour of-if he be so compelled-the usurper and leave the wronged party to seek redress from other forums. To this effect are decisions relied upon by party No. 2 at (Slehusmia v. Ahmed Kazi)1, 1953 Cri.L.J. 93 A.I.R. (Sri Ram v. State)2, 1958 Punjab 47 and (1977 Cri.L.J. 1028)3. 6. Tested in the light of the above, the dispossession in this case took place between the 8th and 13th of September, 1990. The Magistrate was moved on 31-12-1990. To this effect are decisions relied upon by party No. 2 at (Slehusmia v. Ahmed Kazi)1, 1953 Cri.L.J. 93 A.I.R. (Sri Ram v. State)2, 1958 Punjab 47 and (1977 Cri.L.J. 1028)3. 6. Tested in the light of the above, the dispossession in this case took place between the 8th and 13th of September, 1990. The Magistrate was moved on 31-12-1990. Even though a breach of peace was apprehended in view of the reported readiness of parties to fight it out, the Magsitrate's duty lay in making a declaration in favour of petitioners in terms of sub-section (6) of section 145. his refusal to do so is quashed and a declaration in favour of peittioners with an entitlement to restoration of possession is hereby made. Rule in these terms made absolute. Rule made absolute. -----