IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3001 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.57/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR MC.163/2007 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- PRADEEP S/O. MADHAVAN, AGED 49 YEARS, PONNARASSERY VEEDU, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/REVISION PETITIONER/STATE -------------------------------------------------- 1. VENUGOPALAN S/O. KURUMBOOR KRISHNAN KUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.3001 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8 th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who was the counter petitioner in M.C.No.163 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur, challenges the revisional order passed by the Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.R.P.No.57 of 2008, as per which the matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur for disposal afresh, after hearing the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, who is admittedly a tenant in occupation of the upstair portion of the building in question. 2. Proceedings were initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur under Section 133 Cr.P.C on the footing that the building in question is in such a dilapidated condition that it is likely to fall down and thereby cause injuries to persons living in or carrying on trade in the building or anybody passing by. The Sub Divisional Magistrate as per Annexure A1 order dated 22.8.07 passed a conditional order directing the petitioner herein, who is the landlord, to demolish the building or to Crl.M.C.No.3001 of 2008 2 appear and show cause why the proposal should not be made absolute. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed Annexure A3 final order dated 13.6.2008 making absolute the conditional order without taking the evidence of the parties, particularly, the tenant who was in occupation of the upstair portion of the building who is the person who would be detrimentally effected in case the building were demolished. It was only in the final order that the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the 1st respondent/ tenant. The 1st respondent tenant challenged the final order passed under Section 138 Cr.P.C by filing Crl.R.P.No.57 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur who as per impugned order dated 24.7.2008 set aside the final order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and remanded the case for disposal afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the tenant as well and also after conducting an enquiry under Section 137 Cr.P.C. 3. I do not find any good ground for interference with the revisional order passed by the Sessions Judge, since the conditional order was admittedly issued only against the landlord and not against the tenant. Eventhough, as per the conditional order it was a valuable right of the tenant which was sought to Crl.M.C.No.3001 of 2008 3 be put in jeopardy, it was only in the final order that the conditional order for demolishing the building was made absolute after issuing notice to the tenant who was for the first time shown as the 2nd counter petitioner. 4. The only limited request made by the petitioner/ landlord is that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have fixed a time limit for disposal of the matter, since, according to him, the building is in a highly dilapidated condition and it may fall any day. 5. I see some force in the said submission. Accordingly the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of two months of appearance of parties before that court. It is needless to mention that the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 137 Cr.P.C before passing a final order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. Dated this the 8 th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj