JUDGMENT Debiprasad Sengupta, J. 1. This revisional application is against an order dated 29.6.98 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore in M/Case No. 188 of 1995 under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The opposite party No.1 filed an application under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it is stated that the opposite party Kajal Das (petitioner herein) is a tenant is the premises in question and he is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. It was alleged in the said application under section 133 Cr. P.C. that the opposite party Kajal Das had dug a pit on the Northern side of the said building and is storing night soil in the pit as a result of which foul smell is spreading all around the area causing harm to adjoining neighbours. The entire area has been polluted by such injurious and unhealthy gas. In such circumstance it was prayed by the owner of the property, namely Netai Chandra Paul, (O.P. No.1 herein) that necessary order might be passed for removal of the said nuisance from the said premises. The proceeding was numbered as M.P. 2679 of 1995. 3. On receipt of the application under section 133 Cr. P. Code the learned Executive Magistrate by his order dated 19.7.95 directed the Inspector in charge Dum Dum P.S. and the Chairman, South Dum Dum Municipality to enquire and submit a report regarding such nuisance. Police submitted a report on 9.8.95 and the Municipal Authority submitted a report on 10.8.95. In both the reports the allegation made by the 1st party/opposite party No.1 was found to be true and it was suggested by the enquiry authority that such nuisance should be removed. 4. The 1st party/opposite party No. 1 herein thereafter filed another application under section 133 Cr. P.C. before the learned Executive Magistrate on 6.9.95, which was numbered as M.P. Case No. 3372 of 1995. In his second application the 1st party/opposite party No.1 has come up with a new allegation that the property in question is very old and in dilapidated condition, which has become so worse that it may collapse at any moment. It was also stated in that second application that the present petitioner is a tenant in respect of the said premises and as a tenant he is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. 5. It was also stated in that second application that the present petitioner is a tenant in respect of the said premises and as a tenant he is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. 5. On receipt of such second application filed by the opposite party No.1 the learned Executive Magistrate did not call for any further report from the police or from the Municipal Authority. The learned Magistrate simply tagged the earlier application under section 133 Cr. P.C. with the second application and he proceeded on the basis of the reports which were submitted earlier by the police and the Municipal Authority in connection with the first proceeding (M.P. Case No. 2679 of 1995). 6. The present petitioner being the opposite party in the said proceeding (M.P. 2679 of 1995) entered his appearance and contested the said proceeding by filing reply to show cause thereby denying all the allegations made against him. 7. Mr. Raj Kumar Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the provision of section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not have any manner of application in the present case. He further submits that the building in question is in sound condition, which only requires some minor repairs. Before making any enquiry the Municipal Authority did not serve any notice upon the present petitioner and submitted a report in collusion with the 1st party/owner of the house. It is the further submission of Mr. Chakraborty that the report of the Municipal Authority is concocted and collusive and the Municipal Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in bringing some facts in the report which was uncalled for. 8. Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1 supports the impugned order dated 29.6.98 passed by the learned Magistrate, and submits that considering the present condition of the building and the reports submitted by the police and the Municipal Authority the learned. Executive Magistrate was justified in passing the impugned order of demolition of the house. Mr. Mukherjee draws my attention to the provision of section 133 (1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submits that the learned Executive Magistrate acted well within his jurisdiction in passing such order of demolition. 9. Mr. Rabilal Moitra, learned Advocate for the Municipal Authority supports the contention of Mr. Mr. Mukherjee draws my attention to the provision of section 133 (1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submits that the learned Executive Magistrate acted well within his jurisdiction in passing such order of demolition. 9. Mr. Rabilal Moitra, learned Advocate for the Municipal Authority supports the contention of Mr. Mukherjee and submits that the learned Magistrate passed the order of demolition relying on the report submitted by the Municipal Authority and in doing so he has acted within his jurisdiction according to the provision of section 133 (1) (d) Cr. P.C. 10. I have carefully gone through the entire order-sheet including the impugned order dated 29.6.98. I have also gone through the records and all connected papers. In my considered opinion the impugned order suffers from illegality. From records it becomes evident that in the first application under section 133 Cr. P.C. (M.P. Case No. 2679 of 1995) the only allegation made against the opposite party/petitioner is regarding the digging of a pit and storing night soil in the said pit causing nuisance in the locality. In the prayer portion of the said first application also it was prayed by the 1st party only to remove the said nuisance of storing night soil. In the four corners of the said application I could not find any allegation that the present condition of the building is dilapidated and the same should be demolished. In the prayer portion also there is no prayer for demolition of the house. It is on such an application that the learned Executive Magistrate called for a report from the police and the Municipal Authority regarding the said nuisance as alleged by the 1st party in his first application under section 133 Cr. P.C. So, it is always desirable that the report of the concerned authority should be restricted only to the allegations made in the application under, section 133 Cr. P.C. From the police report it is found that the said report is restricted only to the allegation made in the application under section 133 Cr. P.C. and there is absolutely nothing regarding the present condition of the building nor there was any suggestion in the police report that the house should be demolished considering the dilapidated condition of the same. Police only suggested that the nuisance caused by the opposite party by depositing night soil in a pit should be removed. P.C. and there is absolutely nothing regarding the present condition of the building nor there was any suggestion in the police report that the house should be demolished considering the dilapidated condition of the same. Police only suggested that the nuisance caused by the opposite party by depositing night soil in a pit should be removed. But in the report submitted by the Municipal Authority, although the same was also restricted to the main allegation regarding the storing of night soil in a pit, it is mentioned in the last paragraph of the said report that the building in question was constructed more than 80 years ago and its condition is "extremely tottering" and it may collapse any time. In my opinion the last paragraph of this report of the Municipal Authority is totally uncalled for. As I have already stated that these two reports were submitted by the concerned authorities pursuant to the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in the first application (M.P. 2679 of 1995): In my opinion the Municipal Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in bringing some facts in its report, which was uncalled for. The learned Executive Magistrate should not have passed an order for demolition on such report. 11. In the second application under section 133 Cr. P.C. the 1st party/O.P. No. 1 has come up with a completely different allegation that the building is in a dilapidated condition and the same should be demolished. It is really surprising that after the second application was filed the learned Magistrate did not call for any further report from the Municipal Authority or from the police. But he proceeded-on the basis of the report which were submitted in connection with the earlier application (M.P. 2679 of 1995), which was made by the 1st party/O.P. No.1 for removal of some other nuisance. What the learned Magistrate should have done in such a case, he should have called for another report from any appropriate authority regarding the present condition of the building. But in stead of doing that he proceeded to act on some reports which were not submitted after enquiring into the allegation made in the second application under section 133 Cr. P.C. In my opinion the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this score alone. 12. But in stead of doing that he proceeded to act on some reports which were not submitted after enquiring into the allegation made in the second application under section 133 Cr. P.C. In my opinion the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this score alone. 12. It appears from the records and other connected papers that there is a long standing dispute between the landlord (O.P. No.1) and the tenant (petitioner herein), which has also been admitted by the landlord (1st party/O.P. No.1) in his .application under section 133 Cr. P.C. In my opinion the present dispute is purely civil in nature. One party should not take recourse to the provision of section 133 Cr. P.C. to evict a person from his lawful tenancy and should avoid making use of the provision as a substitute for enforcement of a private right. It is evident that the alleged obstruction/nuisance is an old one and in my opinion where the alleged obstruction is an old one, the matter is to be decided by a civil court and section 133 Cr.P.C. is not intended to be applied in such cases to avoid the necessity of filing a civil suit. If the Municipal Authority is of the opinion that the building is in dilapidated condition, which may collapse any time, it may take appropriate steps by initiating proper proceeding for demolition of such building under the provision of Bengal Municipal Act. Similarly the owner of the property is also at liberty to file a civil suit for enforcement of his private right. But a proceeding under section 133 Cr. P.C is not at all maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above. 13. In the result the revisional application succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.6.98 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore in M. Case No. 188 of 1995 is hereby set aside. 14. I make it clear that this order shall not stand in the way of the parties in approaching the appropriate court of law for redress of their grievances. 15. Let this order be communicated to the court below and the lower court records be sent down immediately. Revision allowed and impugned order set aside.