The present revision petition is against the order dated 17.6.1989 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No. 97 of 19S8, allowing the revision petition of the non-applicant and reversing the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhindwara under section 133, Cr. P. C. According to the applicant, the house in dispute is in dilapidated condition and she wants to eject the non-applicant from the house on that account. She, therefore, filed an application under section 133, Cr. P. C. before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chhindwara. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was just and proper and should not have been reversed. Learned counsel for the non-applicant vehemently opposes the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and justifies the order passed by the lower revisional Court. One Guru Prasad the husband of the applicant lainab Bi (Jainat Bi) filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against the non-applicant for ejectment of the non-applicant on the ground that the non-applicant is in unauthorised occupation of the disputed house which is in dilapidated condition and is likely to fall. The non-applicant denied the facts and submitted that h" is the tenant in the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month since the days' of the predecessor in title of the applicant. The lower revisional Court has reversed the order passed by the S. D. M. on the ground that the condition of the house was not at all proved by the applicant. No such intimation was given to the Municipal Corporation. The report submitted by the Head Constable only shows that the non-applicant was living in the house in question without paying any rent. No doubt he writes that the backside wall of the house has fallen down, but this witness cannot be said to be an expert, engineer or architect to give his opinion about the condition of the house. The applicant as well as her husband Guru Prasad did not examine themselves to support their case; only one Ashiq Ali, from whom the applicant claims to have purchased the said house, has been examined. But he was not permitted to be examined by the non-applicant. The applicant as well as her husband Guru Prasad did not examine themselves to support their case; only one Ashiq Ali, from whom the applicant claims to have purchased the said house, has been examined. But he was not permitted to be examined by the non-applicant. In view of this the lower revisional Court has found that the applicant failed to prove the condition of the house and the S. D.M. was not right in coming to the conclusion about the conditions of the house seems to be correct. No interference in such order is called for. The order passed by the S. D. M. was, therefore, set aside. It seems that the applicant had adopted this short cut method of getting the house vacated without initiating any civil proceedings against the non-applicant. There is no report from the Municipal Corporation in this connection. No witness from the Municipal Corporation has been examined. The condition of the house has also not been proved. Merely by saying that it is in dilapidated condition cannot be said to be a proof of the condition of the house. In view of above, it cannot be said that the lower revisional Court has committed any error or illegality in reversing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed.