Judgment :- 1. A tenant who would have exhausted all other efforts for non-suiting - bis landlord has filed this Civil Revision Petition. The landlord who got an order under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') is now involved in the process of execution of the order against a recalcitrating tenant. 2. The tenant raised a contention before the execution court that the order is not capable of helping the landlord to evict the tenant from the building as the latter is unwilling to be dispossessed despite the direction in the order. The said contention was repelled by the execution court which mulcted the tenant with compensatory costs as he felt that the tenant adopts dilatory strategy. The District Judge in revision under S.14 of the Act absolved him from compensatory costs, but agreed with the execution court on the legal point raised by the tenant. This is his second revision. 3. The material portion of the order passed by the Rent Control Court under S.11(3) reads as follows: "The petition is allowed under S.11(3) of the Act and the respondent is directed to put the petitioner in possession of the petition schedule premises. Time-one month". It is the aforesaid order which is sought to be executed by the land lord. S.14 of the Act provides that every order passed under S.11 shall be executed by the Munsiff "as if it were a decree passed by him". According to the learned counsel, the direction contained in the order passed under S.11(3) could, at the most, be treated as a decree for mandatory injunction and hence the same can be executed only in the manner provided for in 0.21 R.32 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short). 0.21 R.35 of the Code can be pressed into service only if there is a decree for delivery of immovable property and as such the landlord is not entitled to dispossess the tenant, contended learned counsel. 4. The words employed by the Rent Control Court in the operative portion extracted above are substantially in line with S.11(3) of the Act. What a tenant has to do on determination of the lease, under general law, is to put the landlord in possession of the leased property. That is why the same expression is used in S.108 (q) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. What a tenant has to do on determination of the lease, under general law, is to put the landlord in possession of the leased property. That is why the same expression is used in S.108 (q) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A landlord can apply to the Rent Control Court under S.11 (3) of the Act for "an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building". The same expression appears in sub-sections (3), (4), (7) and (8) of S.11 of the Act also, which sub-sections deal with the grounds on which the landlord can apply before the Rent Control Court to have possession of the tenanted premises. Similar expression is employed in S.12(3) also which contemplates the contingency of a tenant failing to pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent without showing sufficient cause to the contrary. S.11 (12) amplifies that the legislature used the aforesaid expression in order to enable the landlord to get possession of the building. The commencing words in the said sub-section are the following: "Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of an order under subsection (3)". Can the order under S.11 be fructified in any other manner than securing possession of the building? There is no other conceivable means to have the fruits of an order. There must be a mode to obtain possession of the building pursuant to an order under S.11, if the tenant fails or refuses to comply with the direction. S.14 gives sufficient indication as to what should be done. The section says that every order made under S.11 shall "after the expiry of the time allowed therein be executed ". Time is usually allowed in the order to enable the tenant to comply with the direction. If he does not do so within the time allowed, the order shall be "executed". There will be no complete execution of an order without giving the landlord possession of the building. The above analysis of the provisions would convince that the expression "to put the landlord in possession" means, in effect, eviction of the tenant An order under S.11 is virtually an order for eviction. Therefore, the modes prescribed in 0.21 R.35 can conveniently be resorted to by the execution court for executing the order passed under S.11 of the Act. 5. Therefore, the modes prescribed in 0.21 R.35 can conveniently be resorted to by the execution court for executing the order passed under S.11 of the Act. 5. That apart, even if the order passed under S.11 of the Act can be treated as one for a mandatory injunction, the modes enumerated in 0.21 R.32 are sufficient enough to dispossess the tenant in execution. Attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor, award of compensation to the decree-holder or detention of the judgment-debtor in Central Prison are of course some of the modes prescribed in R.32. But, when the decree is one for injunction, the Court is given the power as per sub-rule(5) of R.32 of 0.21 of the Code to direct that the act required to be done, may be done by some person appointed by the court. The court can appoint an Amin or some other officer of the court to put the landlord in possession of the building in a case where the tenant does not obey direction contained in the order to put the landlord in possession of the building. 6. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that the children of the landlord have started a new business and hence the need (for which the landlord obtained an order under S.11(3)) has now ceased to exist and therefore, the order has become infructuous. It is well neigh settled that execution court is not to go behind the decree, except in very rare cases where the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree itself is questioned or in cases where the decree is shown to be void on account of other reasons. On facts, the tenant has not succeeded in showing that the children of the landlord had started some other business during the pendency of the Rent Control Proceedings. I am not inclined to interfere and hence I dismiss this C.R.P. No costs. Dismissed.