Judgment : This criminal revision case is directed against an order passed by the Tahsildhar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Thanjavur, dated 20.5.1993 under Sec. 133(d) of the Crl.P.C. directing the revision petitioner to remove the premises in which he is conducting a school. This order was passed on the basis of a report by the Assistant Educational Officer, Thanjavur. It appears the school in question is about 10 feet away from an old big building which is known as ‘Sangeetha Mahal’. The report of the Assistant Educational Officer is to the effect that the school building is on the western side of the Sangeetha Mahal and the western side wall of the Sangeetha Mahal may at any time collapse and fall on the school building and that may cause injuries to the students studying in the school. Considering this the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate has passed the impugned order. 2. Now it is argued by Mr.Panchapagesan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that if it is true that the Sangeetha Mahal is old and dilapidated and will fall at any time, under Sec.133 of the Crl.P.C. that building can be ordered to be removed and not the school building. A reading of Sec.133, Crl.P.C. clearly shows that the submission of the learned counsel is quite correct and acceptable. The relevant portion of Sec. 133 of the Code reads as follows: "133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance: (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional-Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered to this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers-(a)...... (b)...... (c)...... (d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or (e)...... (f)...... (f)...... such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order- (i) .... (ii) .... (iii) .... (iv) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees or (v) ..... (vi) ....." From this it is clear that if there is any building the condition of which is likely to fall and thereby cause injuries to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood, such building can be ordered to be removed. 3. As stated above, only the building of the Sangeetha Mahal is said to be in such condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injuries and not the school building. This being the case there is no justification in ordering the school building to be remove Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained against the petitioner. 4. In this view of the matter, the said order is set aside. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of.