Judgment :- 1. The judgment debtor in O.S.No.338/78 challenges an order in execution whereby the execution court refused to appoint a commission to assess the value of improvements to be paid to the judgment debtor. 2. The suit O.S.No.338/78 was one for redemption. A decree was passed allowing redemption on 28-3-1981. By the decree, the plaintiff-decree holder was allowed to obtain possession of the property on deposit of the mortgage money and the value of improvements determined by the court. Counsel for the decree holder submits that the mortgage money was deposited on 28-3-1981 and the compensation for value of improvements was deposited in court on 13-4-1981. After obtaining the decree, the decree holder wanted delivery of the property through court. Judgment debtor was adopting various methods to protract the matter and she was successful to protract the execution till this date. The execution court finally passed an order of delivery. But that order of delivery was stayed by this court in this C.R.P. The order of delivery is dated 19-1-1989 and the court directed to effect delivery of the property on 2-3-1989 and to report the proceedings of the delivery on 3-3-1989. But it has to be noted that on 28-2-1989 itself, the judgment debtor obtained an order of stay of delivery from this Court in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. The revision petitioner judgment debtor submits that even though there was a determination of the value of improvements in 1979, several years had gone by and during this time, the judgment debtor has made valuable improvements. Further he submits that the improvements found in the property in 1979 have grown by this time and he is entitled to a re-valuation of those improvements also. 4. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in compliance with the decree he has deposited the mortgage money and also the compensation for value of improvements in court promptly but he was not able to obtain the fruits of the decree till this date. Now he is put to the difficulty of meeting a claim of re-assessment of the value of improvements. He submitted that since he has deposited the mortgage money and the amount due to the judgment debtor as value of improvements, there is no justification for a re-assessment of the value of improvements. 5. Now he is put to the difficulty of meeting a claim of re-assessment of the value of improvements. He submitted that since he has deposited the mortgage money and the amount due to the judgment debtor as value of improvements, there is no justification for a re-assessment of the value of improvements. 5. I have to consider this contention in view of the decided cases, particularly, in view of the Full Bench decision reported in 1967 KLT 189 = AIR. 1967 Kerala 247 (V. Paily v. K. Augusthy). The judgment debtor has got an entitlement to get the value of improvements re-assessed in the circumstances narrated in this case. It is a statutory right given to the judgment debtor under the Kerala Compensation For Tenants Improvements Act, 1958. Considering the scope of Ss.4 and 5, this Court has held that in circumstances similar to that available in this case, a re-assessment is necessary and for that purpose, when the judgment debtor prays for the appointment of a commission, the execution court has to allow it, if there is no other reason to refuse such a prayer. In this view, the dismissal of the application for appointment of a commission cannot be justified. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the process of reassessment under S.4 and 5 of the Kerala Compensation For Tenants Improvements Act, will cause unending trouble to the decree holder and virtually the decree holder will be deprived of the benefit of the decree since by postponing the delivery by some method, the judgment debtor can repeat his request for re-assessment. This aspect of the matter was disturbing the minds of the court is evident from the decisions reported in 1967 KLT 189 = A.I.R. 1967 Kerala 247 and 1954 K.L.T. 518 (Columbus v. Narayanan). I feel that it is very apposite in these circumstances to quote what Sankaran, J. has said as early as in 1954. Considering a similar provision in the Tenancy Act (XV of 1113, Cochin) Sankaran, J. delivering the Bench decision observed: "The execution proceedings in eviction decrees may never come to an end in view of the provision as it now exists in Clause.3 of S.5 of the Tenancy Act. Considering a similar provision in the Tenancy Act (XV of 1113, Cochin) Sankaran, J. delivering the Bench decision observed: "The execution proceedings in eviction decrees may never come to an end in view of the provision as it now exists in Clause.3 of S.5 of the Tenancy Act. If the statute is suitably amended so as to give a definiteness and certainty regarding the rights of the landlord and the tenant, much of the fruitless fight in execution can be avoided. This is a matter for the consideration of legislature. As the provision stands at present the only way in which courts could give some sort of finality to the disputes in execution of eviction decrees, would be by taking custody of the properties and entrusting the same to a receiver. By adopting such a course the possibility of the tenant putting forward claims for new items of improvements could be obviated". 7. How the Full Bench decision considered this vexing problem is reflected in the following words fallen from Raman Nayar, J., as he then was, in 1969 KLT 189 = AIR 1967 Ker.247. "Once an order for delivery is made in execution and the statutory tenancy determined there can be no question of the defendant being entitled to remain in possession as a tenant by effecting improvements thereafter (for which again compensation has to be determined and paid) and thus, by a repetition of the process, indefinitely postponing eviction. And should the defendant be disposed continually to effect fresh improvements after compensation has been assessed solely with a view to make reassessments and consequent variations of the decree necessary thus involving an indefinite postponement of the order for delivery, that would be an abuse of the process of the Court which the Court would probably meet by the appointment of a receiver or by the issue of an injunction". 8. One thing is certain from the above quote that the process of repeated reassessment of value of improvements and indefinite postponement of the order for delivery would amount to abuse of process of the court. Knowing that such a conduct is an abuse of the process of the court, I am sure that the court should not encourage such process. Of course, it is difficult to compromise such a situation because of the statutory provisions. We have seen as early as in 1954, Sankaran, J. in 1954 KLT. Knowing that such a conduct is an abuse of the process of the court, I am sure that the court should not encourage such process. Of course, it is difficult to compromise such a situation because of the statutory provisions. We have seen as early as in 1954, Sankaran, J. in 1954 KLT. 518 said that the provisions have to be suitably amended, but what we see is similar and more irreconcilable provisions have been made in a later enactment - Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 and interpreting the provisions of that Act, Raman Nayar, J. expressed from what I have quoted his disconsolation in the matter. 9. I have no hesitation to say that the decree holder is put to very great difficulties. In this case I see the decree holder as a person who was in need of money and in order to get some cash, mortgaged his property with the hope that when his position improves he can pay back the money and obtain the property. He did not get back his property even though he was willing to pay the amount he has borrowed and the value of improvements the judgment debtor is entitled to within a reasonable time. Whatever it be, I must not allow the judgment debtor to take undue advantage of the statutory provision. The decree holder is certainly entitled to recover possession of the property so long as he has got a valid decree and the prime devoir of the court must be to see that the relief granted by the decree is actually obtained by the decree holder. In these circumstances, what I should do to render justice to the parties is the question before me. 10. The guidelines given in a similar situation by Sankaran, J. as he then was, are very useful and I believe that if I adopt an ad hoc arrangement based on the guidelines given by His Lordship Sankaran, it will be fair and just in the circumstances of the case. 11. In the result, I set aside the order of the execution court and direct the execution court to appoint a commissioner as early as possible and direct the commissioner to re-assess the value of improvements made in the property in question as expeditiously as possible and to submit a report to the court. 11. In the result, I set aside the order of the execution court and direct the execution court to appoint a commissioner as early as possible and direct the commissioner to re-assess the value of improvements made in the property in question as expeditiously as possible and to submit a report to the court. As soon as the report is submitted before the court, the plaintiff-decree holder, if interested in getting delivery of the property should deposit the amount and ask for the court to give delivery of the property to the decree holder. The court should deliver the property to the decree holder. On delivery of the property he should keep the property with him as a receiver till the disputes regarding the value of improvements are finally settled. With these directions, C.R.P. is disposed of. I direct that the execution court should give top priority to this case and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the records. Send back the records and a copy of this order immediately to the court below.