Judgment 1. Challenging the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Kancheepuram, in R.C.No.756/96/A3, 25.1.1996, these petitions are filed. 2. The Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Kancheepuram has stated in his order that as he received a report to the effect that the building bearing Door No.13-D1, T.K.Nambi Street, Kancheepuram is likely to fall and thereby cause injuries to persons living or carrying on business there and as he is of the opinion that it is warranted to remove the existing old building, it has become necessary for him to pass an order, directing the petitioners herein to remove the trade carried on in that building and to desist from carrying on such trade in that building and to desist from carrying on such trade in that building and further calling upon them to show cause within 15 days of the said order. This order also makes a mention that the order duly made cannot be called in question in any civil court. 3. Sec.133 of Crl.P.C. provides the authority for passing such an order, wherever, it is brought to the notice of the authority concerned that there is any public nuisance, which should be removed. For the purpose of discussion, I will set out Sec.133(l)(d), which reads as follows: “Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in 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 (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 neighborhood 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.” 4. It is stated that the building in question is an old building and is in dilapidated stage. The proceeding here is initiated under Sec.133(1)(d) of Crl.P.C. The necessary conditions to apply Sec.133(1)(d) of Crl.P.C. can be thus set down as under: (a)that the building tent, or structure or tree is in such a dangerous condition that it is likely to fall. (b)that by such fall, it is likely to cause injuries to the neighbourhood or the passers by. 5. (b)that by such fall, it is likely to cause injuries to the neighbourhood or the passers by. 5. Here, admittedly, the notice is issued under Sec. 133(1) (d) to the inmates or occupants of the building. In other words, the tenants in occupation of the said building are the persons against whom, proceedings under Sec.133(1)(d) is initiated. It is clear that an action under this section can be taken only if the building is in such a condition as is likely to cause injury to the neighbours or passers by. Therefore, the action under this section cannot be taken where it is likely to cause damage to the inmates of the building, as held in the decisions reported in Dwarika v. B.K.Ray Dwarika v. B.K.Ray, A.I.R. 1950 Cal. 349, Basanth, A IN RE. Basanth, A IN RE. A.I.R 1949 All. 650 and Shaukat v. Sheodayal Shaukat v. Sheodayal, A.I.R. 1958 M.P. 350. 6. There is yet another point to be taken into account. I do not know under what authority, it can be stated in the order by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate that the order cannot be called in question in a civil court. He has no right at all to say that his order cannot be called in question in a civil court. Further, in this case on hand, it is admitted that already action has been initiated by the landlord under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the same is pending. It is also reported that action has been taken by the landlord for eviction on the ground that the building has become old and that the landlord wants to demolish the same and put up fresh construction over the property. 7. It is to be pointed out that this provision comes under the Heading of ‘Public Nuisance’. It is in the nature of Police Order. It is not a matter, where it can be stated that any public interest is involved, But, in this case, it is admitted that there is a proceeding pending before a civil court, where the landlord has invoked the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the prayer there is for the demolition and re-construction of the building, The petitioners herein are the tenants of the property. Therefore, the question whether the building is actually in a dilapidated condition and whether it is just and necessary to pull down the building and reconstruct the same, will have to be necessarily gone into in that application, pending before the Civil Court. Moreover, the provisions of Sec.133 of Crl.P.C. will be attracted only in cases of emergency and where there is imminent danger to the health or safety of the public. Here, the order does not show any imminent danger to the public. But, the order simply states that the building is likely to fall. Therefore, an analysis would show that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, is not a justifiable one. Further it is not stated in the order that there is any imminent danger to the inmates or to the public. The section clearly provides that only if it is likely to cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighborhood or passing by, the Order under Sec. 133 of Crl.P.C. can be passed. But, here in this case, it is not so. On the other hand, the proceeding is initiated against the inmates or tenants of the building. Hence, I am clearly of the opinion that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, is not a valid order and deserves to be set aside. 8. In the result, these petitions are allowed, quashing the Order passed by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Kancheepuram, on 25.1.96 in R.C.No.756 of 1996, A-3. Consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos.2653 to 2655 of 1996 shall stand closed.