Judgment :- 1. The second defendant in a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage is the revision petitioner. 2.The petitioner filed I. A. No. 627 of 1986 for the issue of a commission to value the improvements, he has effected in the property. This application has been dismissed by the order under challenge. 3. The following excerpts from the order would give an idea as to the nature of the case highlighted by the respondent-plaintiff: "Plaintiff filed counter stating that the application is not maintainable. All the points raised in this T. A. were raised in the previous commission application and accordingly all the value of improvements were assessed by that commissioner. As per I.A. 3464/75 defendants filed objections to commission report-Evidence was taken on that basis and the commission report and mahazar were accepted by this court on 3-1-1976. CRP. against that order was dismissed. A commission application for the very same matter is not permissible. There is no averment in the petition that any further improvements have been effected or that the income from the suit property has increased. Actually there is no such change also. On the other hand, defendant has only destroyed some of the trees in the suit property So there is no necessity to appoint a fresh commission. Plaintiff requests that the petit ion may be dismissed". The court below without considering any of these contentions made the following observation and rejected the application by the impugned order: "Since no sufficient reason is alleged for the appointment of fresh commissioner, the petition is not sustainable". It is true that in the course of the discussion the learned Munsiff has touched upon the report of the previous commissioner. The discussion in this regard reads: "This commission application is silent on the petitioner having effected any further improvements after the assessment by the prior commissioner. This suit was decreed allowing Rs. 14 260/- towards value of improvements taking into account the value of improvements assessed as per judgment of this court dated 30-7-1980". In the case of a usufructuary mortgage executed in Kerala the mortgagee is entitled to get the value of improvements determined in terms of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 for short, the Compensation Act at the time of eviction. In the case of a usufructuary mortgage executed in Kerala the mortgagee is entitled to get the value of improvements determined in terms of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 for short, the Compensation Act at the time of eviction. On the mortgagee establishing bis claim for compensation under S.4, the Court is bound to ascertain the same following the procedure provided for under S.7 to 16 and pass a decree declaring the amount so found due. On the mortgagor paying the mortgage money and also the compensation amount so found due, the mortgagee is bound to put the mortgagor into possession of the land with the improvements thereon. It can thus be seen that the decree for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage governed by Compensation Act, is tantamount to be a decree passed in a suit for eviction of a tenant. Delay in recovery of possession entails in the revaluation of the improvements for which compensation has already been determined, provided the conditions stipulated in sub-section 3 are satisfied. This revaluation thus has to be made under sub-section 3 of S.5. 4. It is thus clear that the compensation found due to the tenant under S.5 (1) requires to be re-determined under sub-section 3 thereof in all cases of delayed execution of the decree for eviction. This sub-section provides that the amount of compensation for improvements made subsequent to the date upto which compensation for improvements had been adjudged in the decree shall be determined by the order of the executing court, and in the manner stipulated therein and the decree thereupon shall automatically be varied in accordance with such order. To ascertain the value of improvements, under sub-section 3 of S.5 the executing court necessarily has to issue a commission. The value of improvements thus re-determined by the commissioner, subject to the objections of the parties, will be adjudged by the court as compensation due to the mortgagee tenant under the decree. Without a revaluation of the improvements, the value of which had been fixed by the decree for redemption, in terms of sub-section 3 of S.5, no usufructuary mortgagee can be evicted because as observed by the Full Bench in Varkey Paily v. Kurian Augusthy (1967 KLT.189) the right of a tenant recognised under Subsection 3 of S.5 is a substantive right. 5. 5. It therefore follows that in order to determine the amount of compensation due to a tenant within the meaning of the Tenants Improvements Act. the court necessarily has to issue orders appointing commissioner more than once; one before the passing of the decree and another in the course of the execution of the decree. This is the position in law If that be so, the principle generally stated by the Division Bench of this Court in Swami Premananda Bharathi v. Swami Yogananda Bharathi (1985 KLT 144). that no second commission can be issued without setting aside the report of the first commission has no application to cases of the nature on hand The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the court below has no right to issue a second commission therefor is rejected. 6. The right of the petitioner to get the enhanced compensation in terms of sub S.3 of S.5 of the Improvements Act can therefore be agitated in execution proceedings. The said right is reserved. 7. With these observations, the C. R. P. is disposed of. The suit is of the year 1973 and therefore the same requires to be disposed of without further delay. I therefore direct the court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which will be transmitted to that court a1ongwith a copy of this order forthwith.