Judgment :- The tenant in B.R.C.O.P. No. 50 of 1980 are the petitioners. The application for eviction was made in 1970 The matter came to this Court thrice in three civil revision petitions thanks to the procedural law of the land. The ground on which eviction was sought was the one under S.11(4)(iv)of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act II of 1965. The respondents had produced the necessary plan from the Kottayam Municipality for reconstruction of the building after demolition of the existing structures. By the time execution was laid, a notification under S.33A of the Town Planning Act came into force making it obligatory for new buildings to leave a space of 40ft vacant in the road side. In view of this notification, reconstruction of the building as per the original plan on the same site became impossible. Therefore E. A No. 809 of 1977 was filed by the petitioner to stay execution of the decree passed in the Rent Control petition on the ground that the order of eviction for reconstruction was rendered unexecutable on account of subsequent events. The execution Court dismissed the application which order was confirmed by the District Judge. Hence this revision. 2. The submission made before me by the counsel for the petitioner is that in allowing execution to proceed the execution Court will be going behind the decree which is not permissible and that unless the Court of the Rent Controller modifies the order after the respondents produce a new plan, the order cannot be executed. 3. The petitioner's counsel made a forceful plea, with reference to Supreme Court cases, that to execute the decree in its present form would be going behind the decree which was not permissible, it was submitted that by executing the decree as it now stands, the execution Court will be denying the judgment-debtor a valuable right granted to him under the provisos to S. II (4) (iv) of the Act. The revisional Court should have remanded the case for disposal directing the Rent Control Court or the execution Court to take note of the changed circumstances and order eviction only as per a revised plan. The revisional Court agreed that under the changed circumstances it would not be possible for the respondents to reconstruct the building at the original site. The revisional Court should have remanded the case for disposal directing the Rent Control Court or the execution Court to take note of the changed circumstances and order eviction only as per a revised plan. The revisional Court agreed that under the changed circumstances it would not be possible for the respondents to reconstruct the building at the original site. He observed that though the new rule made it obligatory on the part of the person reconstructing the building to leave sufficient width near the road that did not mean that reconstruction was impossible. According to the petitioner's counsel any modification with the direction originally made can be made only by the Rent Controller and not by the execution court. 4. The respondents had submitted a plan under the Section when the application was made. When they realised that the building could not be constructed as per that plan, they made available to the Court Ext. Cl report submitted by the Municipal Engineer and Ext. C2 plan. From this report and plan, it is evident that reconstruction is possible at a site belonging to the respondents, of a building, consisting of sufficient space to be given to the petitioner as directed in the order When such a construction is made nothing prevents the petitioner from exercising his option under the section. 5. Sri. C. M. Kuruvilla, appearing for the respondents, reiterated before me his clients' readiness to abide by the directions in the order of the Rent Controller confirmed by the appellate Court and the revisional Court after reconstruction. The question therefore for consideration is whether the ground now urged has any basis in law. 6. Under S.11 (4) (iv) of the Act, the effective order that the court passes is the order for eviction. It is this order that is put in execution. The conditions which the Rent Control Court lays down in its order are not conditions which the court imposes in its discretion. They are conditions which the statute requires to be incorporated in the order. Even if the order does not contain such conditions, the tenant can claim them as of right, when the building is reconstructed. The petitioner's apprehension will be well-founded only if by the coming into force of the new rule, reconstruction of the building becomes impossible. They are conditions which the statute requires to be incorporated in the order. Even if the order does not contain such conditions, the tenant can claim them as of right, when the building is reconstructed. The petitioner's apprehension will be well-founded only if by the coming into force of the new rule, reconstruction of the building becomes impossible. When such a situation arises, it will not be possible for the execution Court to direct eviction, for, the statutory conditions become impossible of compliance. Perhaps in such a situation, the execution court will be justified in declining to exercise its power to order delivery and to direct the parties to move the Rent Control Court for appropriate modifications in the order depending upon the facts of each case. There is nothing in the section which makes it obligatory on the landlord to reconstruct the building exactly at the site where the original building stood. Circumstances may arise as in this case where the court will have to take into account subsequent events not contributed by the landlord to make necessary alterations and issue necessary directions for the fulfilment of the object of the section. After the building is delivered and reconstruction is complete, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Rent Control Court to exercise its. jurisdiction under the proviso to S.11 (4) (iv). That right safeguarded under S.11 (4)(iv) is still available to the petitioner. Simply because the building sought to be reconstructed is being shifted to another site, which site also belongs to the same landlord, this right is not lost and the apprehension of the petitioner Js therefore not well-founded, 8. In an identical case, in CRP. No. 728 of 1980, Chandrasekhara Menon J., held that an alteration in the plan cannot be availed of by the tenant to resist eviction. In that case, the original plan had to be changed ;:t the instance of the Greater Cochin Development Authority. Although under the original plan the reconstructed building was to have 8 rooms, the changed plan was a structure with only 7 rooms. In that case, the original plan had to be changed ;:t the instance of the Greater Cochin Development Authority. Although under the original plan the reconstructed building was to have 8 rooms, the changed plan was a structure with only 7 rooms. The learned judge observed that the tenant had not made out a case how the reconstructed building with 7 rooms would in any way adversely affect his interest either in the matter of exercising his option or in the matter of a room with the same area as originally specified being allotted to him. With this reasoning, a similar objection was overruled. With great respect, I agree with the principle enunciated in that decision. As already indicated the tenant gets a right to object to the delivery only if he satisfies the Court that the order of eviction if implemented would destroy his option and right since reconstruction of the building itself had become impossible. Even in such cases the Rent Control Court will be at liberty to take into consideration all the relevant facts For the purpose of this case. I hold that the petitioner has not made out any case how his right to get the building allotted after reconstruction according to the new plan, will be lost or how that right would be adversely affected by the reconstruction of the building with the same plinth area nearby. This petition had a long lease of painful life and euthanasia is necessary for a peaceful death The execution court is directed not to give any further time for delivery. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs. Issue carbon copy to counsel for the petitioner and the respondents on payment of requisite charges.