JUDGMENT - G.H. GUTTAL, J.:---These petitions by the judgement-debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raise the question of executability of the decree for eviction of a tenant made under the Bombay Rent Act. The question arises in the following manner. The respondent-judgment creditor is the owner of a building in Pune. The building faces North-South and consists of ground and first floor with a loft over the first floor. On the ground floor there are two rooms. The entrance on the ground floor leads into the front room in the occupation of the petitioner-judgement debtor. The rear door of the front room opens into a passage Beyond the passage is situated the second room-rear room-which is also in the occupation of the judgement debtor. In this passage there is a stair case leading to the first floor. One can reach the first floor by using the stair case and the loft by using the room on the first floor. The passage in which the stair case is situated is closed at both the ends. Consequently, one cannot enter the first floor and the loft without entering the front room on the ground floor which is in the occupation of the judgement debtor. 2. The judgment creditors secured a decree for eviction on the ground that she needed the premises for bona fide personal occupation. The decree in Suit No. 1959 of 1975 made by the learned 3rd Addl. Judge Small Cause Court, Pune, ordered the judgment debtor to "deliver possession of the first floor. i.e., two rooms---". The Appeal No. 548 of 1979 by the judgment debtor and the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were dismissed respectively on 27-10-1980 and 18-9-1982. The judgment creditor made an application on 3-1-1981 for execution of the decree. In this application, she sought possession of the two rooms on the first floor. But, on 30-12-1981 the application was amended and the possession of the entire building except the two rooms on the ground floor occupied by the judgment debtor was sought. The V Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, who heard the application for execution held that the decree was inexecutable as the judgment creditor cannot secured possession of the two rooms on the first floor without entering into and using the judgment debtor's property. The judgment creditor preferred Appeal No. 481 of 1983. The V Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, who heard the application for execution held that the decree was inexecutable as the judgment creditor cannot secured possession of the two rooms on the first floor without entering into and using the judgment debtor's property. The judgment creditor preferred Appeal No. 481 of 1983. The District Court found that the appeal was incompetent and converted it into a Revision application. The learned Judge of the District Court held that the decree is executable and issued certain directions. This order is impugned in Writ Petition No. 3327 of 1984. Writ Petition No. 1964 of 1986 by the judgment debtor is against the order of the District Court in Civil Appeal No. 807 of 1985 by which reversing the order of the Small Causes Court, Pune, dated 15-1-1985, it was ordered that the judgment creditor can take possession of the premises on the first floor by creating access by a stair case through the opening on the ground floor. In Writ Petition No. 1965 of 1986 the judgment debtor impugns the order dated 25-3-1986 made by the District Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 806 of 1985 by which it ordered that the judgment creditor shall take possession of the two rooms on the first floor. 3. Two points have been urged by Mr. Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner--- (a) The decree is not executable because the judgment creditor cannot entire the two rooms on the first floor, as it has no independent entrance. (b) The execution cannot be granted against the loft because the decree does not extend to the loft, but is confirmed to the two rooms on the first floor. 4. If the decree is to be executed by issuing and executing a warrant of possession, the judgement-creditor cannot effectively possess the two rooms on the first floor. Even if, the warrant of possession is executed by permitting entry through the ground floor occupied by the judgment debtor, the judgment-creditor cannot possess the property. To possess means to exercise the power of entry, exit and to occupy. Even if, the judgment creditor enters the two rooms the judgment debtor can always refuse entry and exit through the ground floor. In this sense, the decree can not be executed. 5. But, Mr. To possess means to exercise the power of entry, exit and to occupy. Even if, the judgment creditor enters the two rooms the judgment debtor can always refuse entry and exit through the ground floor. In this sense, the decree can not be executed. 5. But, Mr. Apte, learned Counsel for the judgment creditor drew my attention to certain provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "The Bombay Rent Act"), the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), and the Code of Civil Procedure, and urged that the decree can be given effect to by making certain order in execution. 6. The Special Court created by sections 28 and 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, are enjoined to follow the "prescribed procedure" in executing the orders made by them'. "Prescribed" means prescribed by Rules (Section 5(9) "Prescribed" means prescribed by rules and prescribed shall be construed accordingly). Chapter IV-A of the Rules applies to the Court of Small Causes established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The Small Causes Court, Pune, whose decree is sought to be executed, is such a Court. Rules 9-A and 9-B apply to suits other than suits for eviction. Under Rule 9-C the Court shall "as far as may be" and "with necessary modification" follow the procedure prescribed for a Court of first instance by the Code of Civil Procedure. This procedure applies not only to suits but also to "proceedings other than those referred to in Rules 9-A and 9-B (Rule 9-C, Chapter IV of the Rules, 9-C. "Procedure for other suits and proceedings.---In suits or proceedings other than those referred to in rules 9-A and 9-B, a Court of Small Cause established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, shall follow, as far as may be, and with the necessary modifications, the procedure prescribed for a Court of first instance by the Code"). It is clear that "proceeding" include proceedings in execution. Therefore, the Court executing a decrees for eviction made by the Court of Small Causes, Pune, shall follow for execution of its decree and orders the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. It is clear that "proceeding" include proceedings in execution. Therefore, the Court executing a decrees for eviction made by the Court of Small Causes, Pune, shall follow for execution of its decree and orders the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The broad liberal sweep of Rule 9-C evident from the words "as far as may be" and "with necessary modifications", empowers the executing Court to apply the procedure by modifying it to suit the requirements of a particular decree. While doing so, the Court must take into account the nature of the decree, the situation of the property and feasibility of the proposed modifications. It should then endeavour to effectuate the decree. 7. It is, no doubt, true that the rules referred to above do not provide for every situation that may arise in execution. But then the legislature cannot be expected to foresee every conceivable situation or setting that its Act and Rules are intended to meet. Where such situations arise, Rule 16 lays down :--- "any question relating to procedure not specifically provided for by these Rules" shall be decided by the aid of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rule 16.---The provisions of the code to be generally followed.--- In deciding any question relating to produce not specifically provided for by these Rules the Court shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the code). The situation created by the decree in question makes it difficult to execute it by the normal process of issuing a warrant of possession; something more is required to be done, in order that the judgment creditor gets a permanent access to the two rooms on the first floor. 8. Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to issue Commissions for carrying out the various acts or investigations stated therein. In the case of a preliminary decree for partition of immovable property the Court is empowered to issue Commission to "make partition and separation" according to the rights declared by such decree (Order XXVI Rule 13. "Where a preliminary decree for petition has been passed, the Court may, in any case not provided for by section 54, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit to make the partition or separation according to the rights as declared in such decree"). "Where a preliminary decree for petition has been passed, the Court may, in any case not provided for by section 54, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit to make the partition or separation according to the rights as declared in such decree"). The decree sought to be executed in this case is not a preliminary decree for partition of immovable property. Yet delivery of possession to the successful litigant is a factor which is common to a decree for partition and the decree for possession. If a Commission can be issued for the purpose of making a survey or investigation to facilitate the execution of a decree for partition, I see no reason why the same procedure cannot be resorted to in the case of a decree for possession. The circumstances of this case are somewhat unusual and extraordinary, in that the delivery of possession has run into a difficulty created by the situation of the property which is the subject-matter of the decree. Unforseen difficulties of procedure do arise in carrying out the decisions of Courts. But the procedural law is intended to play its part in precisely such situations. That is why Rule 9-C and Rule 16 have prescribed flexibility of procedure so that the Court whose duty it is to effectuate the legislative intent is not hindered in its endeavour to execute the decree by resorting to the procedure "with necessary modifications" as far as the procedure can be applied. Where situations "not specifically provided (Rule 16) by the Rules arise, the solution has to be sought in the aid of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rule 16). In my opinion, the Bombay Rent Act and the Rules clearly demand that, in the circumstances of this case, the procedure prescribed by Order XXVI Rule 13 should be resorted to. I do not see any legal impediment in doing so. 9. This is how it can be done. There is on the rear side of the building an open space which belongs to the judgment-creditor. During the arguments, learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor disclosed a map drawn by his architect, the correctness of which is not admitted. The dimensions of this space on the rear side of the building have been shown as 7'3 x 3'10". The WC block is at one end of the passage. During the arguments, learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor disclosed a map drawn by his architect, the correctness of which is not admitted. The dimensions of this space on the rear side of the building have been shown as 7'3 x 3'10". The WC block is at one end of the passage. The entire open space is enclosed by a wall. A door fixed in this wall opens into a gully on the west. This space can be used to erect a stair case for the use of the judgment-creditor, the costs of which shall be borne by the judgment creditor herself. If this is done, the judgment creditor will be able to have an independent access to the premises on the first floor of which she is entitled to possession. 10. The submission of Mr. Naik set out at (b) in paragraph 3 of this judgment is well-founded. The decree is for possession of the two rooms on the first floor. There is no decree for possession of the loft. The judgment and decree of the trial and Appellate Courts and the finding in the Writ Petition make it clear that the suit and decree are only in respect of the two rooms on the first floor. Nowhere has the loft been mentioned as the subject-matter of the suit or the decree. Therefore, the judgment creditor is not entitled to receive possession of the loft. 11. In Writ Petition No. 3327 of 1984, I make the following order --- i) The Court of Small Causes Pune shall, forthwith, issue a commission for the purpose of inspecting the property including the open space on the rear side. The commission shall make a report and state whether it is feasible to erect the stair case through the open space on the rear side so as to connect the rooms on the first floor to the open space. He shall also state the approximate costs required for this work. The Commissioner shall be a qualified Architect or Engineer whom the learned Judge of the Court of Small Cause shall select. ii) The learned trial Judge shall consider the report of the Commission and execute the decree by erecting a stair case to connect the two rooms on the first floor with the open space behind the house. The Commissioner shall be a qualified Architect or Engineer whom the learned Judge of the Court of Small Cause shall select. ii) The learned trial Judge shall consider the report of the Commission and execute the decree by erecting a stair case to connect the two rooms on the first floor with the open space behind the house. iii) The impugned order of the learned District Judge, Pune, is hereby confirmed subject to the directions issued at (i) and (ii) above. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with the directions given above. iv) Writ Petition Nos. 1964 of 1986 and 1965 of 1986 are dismissed. v) Rules discharged in all these three Write petitions with costs. Order accordingly. -----