ORDER : 1. The first petitioner Devaki Amma whose legal heir is her son, the second petitioner, had in her ownership a commercial building in which there were several rooms. The rooms were rented out to several persons, one of them is the second respondent. The first petitioner filed a petition before the local Sub Divisional Magistrate alleging that the building was on the verge of collapse and it was necessary to demolish and remove it to avoid injury to persons passing by the road running along the boundary of the property. Her prayer is to direct the second respondent to vacate the room occupied by him as tenant. The Sub Divisional Magistrate passed Annexure-II conditional order directing the second respondent to vacate the room. After several rounds of litigation the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned final order directing the second respondent to vacate the room in his occupation. This was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the revision petition, allowed it and set aside the final order. This is challenged in this Revision Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the final order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to hold that the building was in a such condition that it was likely to fall. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent tenant submits that the attempt of the petitioner- landlord is to evict the tenant, which is permitted only under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner- landlord contends that the provisions in that Act are not an impediment for taking steps under section 133 Cr.P.C. for which he relies on the decision of this court in Shanmughan vs. Paul, 1986 KHC 323 : 1986 KLT 1242 , Porinchu vs. Shanmughan, 1987 (1) KLT 742 , Kunjukrishna Pillai vs. Sreekumar, 1991 KHC 635 : ILR 1991 (2) Ker. 987 of the Bombay High Court in Tejmal Punamchand Burad vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 1992 KHC 1138 : 1992 Cri. 987 of the Bombay High Court in Tejmal Punamchand Burad vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 1992 KHC 1138 : 1992 Cri. LJ 379 of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Geeta Devi and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1999 (3) ACR 2518 : MANU/UP/1347/ 1999 and of the Supreme Court in Vasant Manga Nikumba and Others vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 54. In all these cases the order passed by the Magistrate was in respect of buildings in the occupation of tenants. In Shanmughan vs. Paul (Supra) this court held that Section 11 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act "is not intended to be an exception to S.133 (d) of the Code." What is inhibited in S.11 of the Act is only eviction of the tenant except in accordance with the provisions contained therein. S.133 of the Code "is intended to meet an entirely different contingency though sometimes the occupants of the building including the tenants may have to vacate the building consequently". The same view has been taken in Porinchu vs. Shanmughan and Kunjikrishnan Pillai vs. Sreekumar (supra). In the decisions of the High Court of Bombay and Allahabad and the Supreme Court referred to above nothing was found wrong in taking proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C in respect of a building in the possession of tenants. The provisions in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act operate in different fields. The provisions in the Act are not obstacle for an executive Magistrate to take action under section 133 Cr.P.C in respect of buildings in the possession of tenants who are governed by the Act. 5. It appeared to me that the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was illegal on a ground other than the one raised in the objection of the second respondent. It relates to the nature of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The impugned order directs the respondent-tenant to vacate the room in his possession. No other direction has been issued. The parties were heard on this point. 6. The above question was not considered in any of the above cases. The proceedings in Shanmughan vs. Paul (supra) were initiated on an application filed by the landlord. The impugned order directs the respondent-tenant to vacate the room in his possession. No other direction has been issued. The parties were heard on this point. 6. The above question was not considered in any of the above cases. The proceedings in Shanmughan vs. Paul (supra) were initiated on an application filed by the landlord. The sessions Judge by whom the preliminary order was passed set aside the order only on the ground that the proceedings under section 133 were vitiated in view of the provisions in section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. This court set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and remanded the matter. 7. In Kunjukrishna Pillai vs. Sreekumar (supra) this court held that it was a case of misuse of the provisions in Section 133 Cr.P.C. In Tejmal Punamchand Burad's case considered by the Bombay High Court, the landlord approached the Station House Officer of the local police station and on the report of the latter the Sub Divisional Magistrate initiated the proceedings under section 133 of the Code. In the case of Smt. Geeta Devi (supra) the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code were initiated on the application of the landlord. The preliminary order of the Magistrate was challenged on two grounds viz. (1) the building was not in a dangerous condition and (2) the proceedings were bad in view of the provisions in the Rent Control Act. The court took the view that as nothing was decided by the Magistrate, the petition filed by the tenants to quash the proceedings could not be entertained. In Vasant Manga Nikumba's case considered by the Supreme Court (supra) the landlord and the tenants were parties. But it is not stated that the proceedings were initiated on the application of the landlord. 8. In Vasant Manga Nikumba's case considered by the Supreme Court (supra) the landlord and the tenants were parties. But it is not stated that the proceedings were initiated on the application of the landlord. 8. Section 133(1)(d) Cr.P.C runs 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 that any building, tenant or structure, or any tree 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 such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person owning, possessing or controlling such building tent, structure; or tree within a time to be fixed in the order to remove, repair or support such building tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees. The order that may be passed under section 133 Cr.P.C is only to remove, repair or support the building which is likely to fall. There is no provision to direct the respondent to vacate the building. An order to vacate a building can be passed only as an ancillary order. It cannot be the main direction in a proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. 9. The preliminary order passed by the learned Sub Division Magistrate in the present case is illegal. Consequently, the final order also is illegal. 10. In this case the person who may be directed to remove, repair or support the building is the first petitioner herself. It is evident from section 138 Cr.P.C that the direction contemplated by section 138(1)(d) r/w iv can be passed only against a respondent. A petitioner cannot ask the Magistrate to pass an order against himself. 11. It is very clear that the attempt of the petitioner is to evict the respondent tenant from his tenanted premises, the order for which should be obtained under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 12. A petitioner cannot ask the Magistrate to pass an order against himself. 11. It is very clear that the attempt of the petitioner is to evict the respondent tenant from his tenanted premises, the order for which should be obtained under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 12. The sub Divisional Magistrate relied on a report prepared by PW-2 Executive Engineer of Public Works Department to hold that the building was in a dangerous condition. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the report cannot be accepted. I have gone through the deposition of PW2. The report was prepared behind the back of the parties; notice of the inspection had not been given to either of them. The building was closed at the time of the inspection. PW2 did not even enter the building. He did not ascertain the width of the wall of the building. He did not inspect the strength of the first floor of the building. Nor did he do any scientific test to ascertain the stability of the building. In the report he has not given any details of the inspection, which is expected of an expert. 13. In TKSM Kalyana Sundaram vs. Kalyani Ammal, 1975 Crl. LJ 1717 the Madras High Court observed that Section 133 is attracted only in cases of emergency. This was approved by the Supreme Court in Vasant Manga Nikumba and Others vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 54. The Apex Court has held: "The dangerous condition of the building is in praesenti but not in future." This has been reiterated in Kachrulal Bhaginath Agnawal vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (9) SCC 36 . 14. The Engineer who inspected the property (PW-2) was of the opinion that even a minor natural calamity would result in the collapse of the building. The inspection was conducted in or about 2006. Even now (2019) the building has not collapsed. This is inspite of the fact that about six months ago the state experienced the worst natural calamity in 100 years. This itself shows that his report is not based on facts. 15. The inspection was conducted in or about 2006. Even now (2019) the building has not collapsed. This is inspite of the fact that about six months ago the state experienced the worst natural calamity in 100 years. This itself shows that his report is not based on facts. 15. The view taken by the Madras High Court in TKSM Kalyana Sundaram's case (supra) that recourse to section 133 of the Code cannot be "a substitute for civil/proceedings and the parties should have recourse to the civil remedy available and should not be encouraged to taking recourse to the provisions of Section 133 of the Code" has been approved by the Supreme Court in Vasant Manga Nikumba's Case (supra). The application by the petitioner-landlord is an abuse of the provisions in Section 133 of the Code. It is a valid ground to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate as held by this court in Kunjukrishna Pillai's case (supra). 16. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the final order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate is liable to be set aside. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, this Crl. R.P. is dismissed.