G.S.N. Tripathi, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order dated 18.7.96 passed by VIth Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 1995, Sri Sheetal Prasad Kesharwani v. Kripa Shanker Tandon & others, whereby learned revisional court has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. The revision arose out of order dated 7.3.95 passed by the City Magistrate, Kanpur in Criminal proceedings No. 11/13/94, under Section 133 Cr.P.C. relating to P.S. Kotwali, Kanpur, Kripa Shanker Tandon v. Sheetal Prasad Kesharvani and others, whereby the learned Executive Magistrate has found that the disputed building to be in a dilapidated condition and is likely to fall at any time, causing loss of human lives. The learned Executive Magistrate upheld the contention of the applicant and ordered that the disputed construction be demolished within 15 days from the date of order through the medium of S.H.O. concerned.
(2.) SRI Kripa Shanker Tandon, respondent No. 3 moved an application before the learned Executive Magistrate to demolish the building as it is in a dilapidated condition, part of which had already fallen. The remaining part is also likely to fall at any moment and there is apprehension of loss of human lives. He also mentioned that the civil suit No. 915/95 has been filed in the Court of Munsif Kanpur with regard to the same property, but still, the dilapidated house has not been demolished. On the basis of the application, notice was issued to the opposite party to admit or deny existence of the dilapidated house over the disputed land, which is likely to fall at any moment. He appeared before the court and denied the allegations. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the house was extremely in a dilapidated condition and was likely to fall at any moment. Hence it has taken a shape of nuisance and deserves to be demolished under Section 133 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining oral as well as documentary evidence on the record, the learned Executive Magistrate came to the conclusion that the contention was correct and the building was likely to fall at any time as there was apprehension of loss of lives and property. So, he ordered for demolition of the same. This finding of fact was based on actual evidence on the record.
(3.) THE matter was reagitated before the learned revisional court. The learned revisional court, after re -scanning and scrutinizing the evidence on the record, confirmed the findings of fact that the house was in a dilapidated condition and was likely to fall at any moment and has attained the shape of nuisance in law. This finding of the learned revisional court was also rendered after scrutinizing the entire evidence and material available on the record, before him. Thus this is a finding of fact and it cannot be disturbed by this Court while hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court cannot disturb the finding of fact, which is based on the record, unless it is perverse. The learned counsel despite his efforts could not show any perversity in the orders passed by both the courts below, nor he has been able to show that any conclusion has been drawn on the basis of illegal evidence or no evidence. Hence, it cannot be said that the order impugned suffers from the vice of perversity, incorrectness and illegality. These orders are final. After scrutiny, I find that the finding of fact recorded by the courts below on this point, is based on actual evidence on the record. That is correct and is upheld by this court as well.;