JUDGMENT B. N. P. Singh, J.- This criminal revision is against a finding of possession over Stall No. 5 New Market, Police Station Kotwali, Patna, recorded by Shri M. D. Sharma, Executive Magistrate, Sadar Patna on 5th July, 2000 in Case No. 259(M) 84. 2. Factual matrix appearing from the pleadings of the parties and also submissions made at Bar is that Yogendra Prasad Jayaswal, second Party, who had been running a tailoring shop in the name and style of "Grand Tailoring", took Stall No.5, New Market Police Station Kotwali, Patna, on monthly rental of Rs. 40/- in pursuance of written agreement executed between him and the Chief Executive Officer, Patna, Municipal Corporation (In, short 'the Corporation') on 21.5.1954) and allegedly since then he had been coming in possession and occupation of the premises in question. However as some amount of rent had fallen due against him in respect of disputed stall, he was served with a notice by he Corporation. Since first parry volunteered to pay the entire amount of due of Rs. 11,899.56 which was due against the second party, P1tna Municipal Corporation made provisional settlement of said stall in his favour subject to payment of dues by him. It so happened that as first party did not deposit entire dues, provisional allocation was cancelled by letter no. 1 dated August, 1980. Since Yogendra Prasad Jayaswal thereafter deposited entire amount of dues against him, he was permitted to continue in possession of the stall. As Nageshwar Prasad Singh, first party was putting obstructions in his possession, he moved the District Magistrate for removal of unauthorised obstruction. Though first party filed CWJC No. 5884 of 1983 against cancellation of proposed settlement which was dismissed in limine. Thereafter, the first party got a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('In short the Code') initiated. It is alleged by Yogendra Prasad Jayaswal that on strength of collusive Police report, Magistrate, however, during inquiry, found disputed stall in his possession. The pleadings of the second party Yogendra Prasad Jaiswal before the Court below was that it was surprising as to how a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code was initiated notwithstanding the fact that the stall continued to be in possession of the first party since last 30 years and for which there was also a Police report dated 15.3.1984 and Magistrate's report dated 28.6.1984. Somewhat similar pleadings had been that of Patna Municipal Corporation also which was arrayed as first party no.2 in the proceeding. 3. The settlement of disputed premises of Patna Municipal Corporation in favour of Yogendra Prasad Jayaswal through a deed of agreement has been acknowledged by Nageshwar Prasad Singh, 1st party also. However, the assertions made by Nageshwar Prasad Singh, 1st party was that as Yogendra Prasad Jayaswal, 2nd party did not vacate the premises even after expiry of terms of agreement, he was required to pay Rs. 12,000/- which he did not pay to the Corporation. The settlement as such was cancelled by the Corporation vide memo no. 2066 dated 27.9.1997. The 1st party thereafter volunteered to clear the dues and on having been permitted by the Corporation, while he deposited Rs. 1500/- on 6.10.1979 in the office of the Corporation, made commitment for payment of the dues in four instalments. The assertion made by the 1st party is that the settlement of disputed premises still continues which had not been terminated by the Corporation. 4. Pursuant to initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code, it came to be converted into one under Section 145 of the Code by the learned Magistrate in seisin of the proceeding. During inquiry, both the parties examined witnesses and also placed on the record documents to strengthen the assertions made on their behalf claiming their possession over the disputed premises. During inquiry while the 1st party examined five witnesses, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the 2nd party. No witness, however, was examined by the Corporation, which was one of the second parties in the proceeding. It was acknowledged even by witness no. 3 examined on behalf of Yogendra Prasad Jayaswal, 2nd party, that 1st party was running a business of tobacco in the disputed stall. It was acknowledged even by witness no. 4 Naresh Kumar Jain that the 1st party was in possession of the stall in question. Witness nos.1 and 2, however, stated that the shop was locked by first party who was selling tobacco there. Plethora of documents too were placed on the record by both the parties including document of agreement executed in favour of the 1st party and 2nd party by the corporation at two different times. Witness nos.1 and 2, however, stated that the shop was locked by first party who was selling tobacco there. Plethora of documents too were placed on the record by both the parties including document of agreement executed in favour of the 1st party and 2nd party by the corporation at two different times. It may be noticed that though original settlement of the disputed premises was in favour of Yogendra Prasad Jayaswal, 2nd party in the year 1954, and when he fell in arrears and could not clear the dues of the corporation, allocation of disputed shop had been made in favour of the 1st party which is evidenced by letter no. 2223 dated 18.10.1979 (Exhibit 1). The first party had placed on the record large number of rent receipts granted by the Corporation in respect of the disputed stall for the period preceding initiation of proceeding and also, after the proceeding. In the year 1979 vide Exhibit 2, a receipt was granted in favour of Nageshwar Prasad Singh, 1st Party acknowledging receipt of Rs. 1500/- by the Corporation and during the same year vide Exhibit 2/1 acknowledgment of receipt of Rs. 15,967.17 was made by issuance of receipt of Croporation on 11.1.1989. Acknowledgment of rent paid by 1st party is evidenced also by Exhibits 2/2, 2/3 and 3. 5. What has been placed on the record by the petitioner are original receipts for stall fees paid by him in the year 1980-85 and also the deed of agreement Exhibit B. Some notices issued to him by the Corporation were also placed on the record by the second party. 6. Learned Magistrate on appreciation of written statements filed on behalf of both the parties, deposition of witnesses and also documents filed by them, found 1st party Nageshwar Prasad Singh to be in possession of the disputed stall and accordingly declared him to be in possession until evicted by due course of law. 7. 6. Learned Magistrate on appreciation of written statements filed on behalf of both the parties, deposition of witnesses and also documents filed by them, found 1st party Nageshwar Prasad Singh to be in possession of the disputed stall and accordingly declared him to be in possession until evicted by due course of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge that the learned Magistrate has recorded a finding which was against weight of mass of evidence placed on the record by the petitioner during inquiry, and drawing my attention to the deed of agreement (Exhibit 6), contentions are raised that since the terms of agreement postulate bilateral action between two parties, the said deed of agreement evidenced by Exhibit 6 did not betray that Corporation was a party to the contract, as the impression which can be inferred from the instrument in question was that a document was executed by 1st party in presence of the Administrator of the Corporation. 8. Though the argument looks attractive, it did not bear merit as no mode for entering into a contract can possibly be defined. Suffice it to say that the document Exhibit 6 betrays contract between Nageshwar Prasad Singh and Corporation and no hairsplitting criticism can be made of the said document. Since the petitioner failed to clear the arrears of rent, pursuant to settlement of stall in question in his favour by Corporation, the 1st party had stepped in his shoes by volunteering to clear the arrears and for which he also paid Rs.1500/-. Thereafter, the document exhibited on behalf of the 1st party does manifestly suggest that he had been paying rent to the Corporation for the disputed stall. The document betrayed the stall in question to be in possession of the 1st party both preceding initiation of proceeding and also after initiation of the proceeding. The merit of statement of the witnesses examined during inquiry has been noticed earlier. Even witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner had acknowledged the disputed premises in question to be in possession of the 1st party. 9. Finding recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate in the impugned order in my opinion did not run counter to the weight of mass of evidence and in the circumstances, there being no merit, this revision is dismissed.