JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. This is a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution filed by the landlord of a building. The landlord obtained an order for eviction against respondent No.3 under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called the Act. The operative portion of the order for eviction read as follows: "In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. The respondent is directed to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building within 4 months from today. The petitioner will reconstruct the building within six mouths from the date of surrender. The respondent will have the first option to occupy the room in the reconstructed building. The extent of the room shall be the same as that of the room which is vacated now". (emphasis supplied) Though the tenant challenged the order for eviction before the Appellate Authority and this court in Revision, he did not succeed. The landlord did not object to the direction that the extent of the room to be offered to the tenant shall be the same as that of the room which is to be vacated by the tenant. But when the tenant approached the Supreme Court challenging the order for eviction, their Lordships refused to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. The Supreme Court further proceeded to observe as follows: "Learned counsel for the respondent stated and it is in the order of the Rent Controller that the landlord had undertaken to deliver a suitable portion of the premises after reconstruction. It is accordingly reiterated". (Emphasis supplied) 2. Subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court, the tenant vacated the premises. The landlord reconstructed the building. The landlord claims that she offered to the tenant equal area in the upstair portion of the three storied building which she was putting up by way of reconstruction. But the tenor was not willing to accept the same and was insisting on a room in the ground floor itself, since according to him he had been evicted from a room in the ground floor. The case of the offer by the landlord is disputed by the tenant. 3. The tenant filed an application before the Principal Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam which was numbered as E.P.590 of 1994. The case of the offer by the landlord is disputed by the tenant. 3. The tenant filed an application before the Principal Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam which was numbered as E.P.590 of 1994. The said application purports to be one under O.21 R.10, 11 and 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S.14 of the Act. The tenant claiming himself to be the decree holder complained that the landlord-judgment debtor had not put the tenant in possession of the reconstructed building despite the lapse of time granted therefor and hence the tenant is entitled to delivery of a suitable portion of the building in execution. The tenant also filed an application which was numbered as E.A.351 of 1994 seeking an order of injunction restraining the landlord from inducting any strangers into the room which according to him corresponded to the room earlier occupied by him. The landlord appeared and filed a preliminary objection contending that the execution petition was not maintainable in law and that that court had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for in the execution petition and in the interlocutory application and that the question of jurisdiction should be taken up and decided as a preliminary issue. The landlord also reserved her rights to raise all other available contentions in case the question of jurisdiction was decided against her. The principal Munsiff who apparently was also the Rent Controller by order dated 9-8-1994 held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application and consequently overruled the preliminary objections raised by the landlord. Not content, the landlord filed a revision against the order of the Principal Munsiff and Rent Controller under the proviso to S.14 of the Act before the District Court. The District Court by its order dated 17-11-1994 held that the executing court had jurisdiction to order restoration of possession in case an order for eviction is passed under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. It also held that there was no substance in the contention of the appellant that there was no executable order in favour of the tenant. Consequently the District Court dismissed the revision. The correctness of the said decision is sought to be questioned in this proceeding. 4. S.11(4)(iv) of the Act reads as follows: "11. Eviction of tenants. ...... It also held that there was no substance in the contention of the appellant that there was no executable order in favour of the tenant. Consequently the District Court dismissed the revision. The correctness of the said decision is sought to be questioned in this proceeding. 4. S.11(4)(iv) of the Act reads as follows: "11. Eviction of tenants. ...... (4) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, ......................................... (iv) if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the Court that he has the plan and licence, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and it the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction. Provided that the landlord who evicts a tenant and does not reconstruct completely the building within a time which may be fixed or extended by the Rent Control Court, shall on a petition before that Court be liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, it is proved that he has wilfully neglected to reconstruct completely the building within such time: Provided further that the Court shaft have power at any time to issue directions regarding the reconstruction of the building and on failure of compliance by the landlord, to give effect to the order in any manner the Court deems fit and in appropriate cases to put the tenant back in possession or award to the evicted tenant damages equal to the excess rent he has to pay for another building that he is occupying in consequence of such eviction: Provided further that the tenant who was evicted shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him with liability to pay its fair rent......" (emphasis supplied) It could be seen from the first proviso that the reference is to 'that court' which obviously means the court which passed the order for eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. This is clear from the provision for extension of time vested with the Rent Control Court referred to in that provision immediately preceding the expression 'that court' occurring in the first proviso to S.11 (4)(iv) of the Act. This is clear from the provision for extension of time vested with the Rent Control Court referred to in that provision immediately preceding the expression 'that court' occurring in the first proviso to S.11 (4)(iv) of the Act. In other words the right to impose the fine on the landlord for his failure to reconstruct the building is vested with the Rent Controller. The second proviso which deals with the right to give effect to the order and to put back the tenant in possession or award to the evicted tenant damages is vested with 'the court'. Obviously the expression 'the court' in the second proviso should refer to 'that court' occurring in the first proviso which in turn could only be the Rent Control Court in terms of S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. In other words the right to work out the consequences arising out of the failure of the landlord to honour his commitment under an order for eviction passed under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act continues with the Rent Control Court and not with any other court. Though under S.14 of the Act every order made under S.11 can be executed by the Munsiff or by the Principal Munsiff as the case may be as if it were a decree passed by him, the remedy for non compliance with the direction contained in an order for eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act is still retained in the Rent Controller in view of the reference to the Rent Control Court in the provisos to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. It is therefore clear that the tenant was obliged to move the Rent Control Court for getting restoration of possession in terms of the second proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. The tenant in the present case is seen to have made the application before the Principal Munsiff who was also the Rent Controller but in the form of an execution petition by invoking O.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well. Neither the executing court nor the District Court had properly adverted to the provisions contained in S.11(4)(iv) of the Act in assuming jurisdiction in the executing court for giving relief to a tenant on the basis of the order for eviction passed in this case. 5. Neither the executing court nor the District Court had properly adverted to the provisions contained in S.11(4)(iv) of the Act in assuming jurisdiction in the executing court for giving relief to a tenant on the basis of the order for eviction passed in this case. 5. The view I have taken as above is supported by the observations of the Division Bench in C.R.P.885 of 1972 wherein their Lordships have observed: "If the landlord fails to put up the tenant back into possession of the accommodation in the re-constructed building or where there is dispute with respect to the fair rent, the intervention of the Rent Controller becomes necessary. The jurisdiction to enforce the conditions on which the Rent Controller passed the order under S.11(4)(iv) is impliedly vested in him". According to the Division Bench, the Rent Controller does not become functus officio, the moment it passes the order for eviction under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. It is no doubt true that the question whether the executing court can work out the rights of a dispossessed tenant was not the issue before the Division Bench in that case. 6. The conferment of jurisdiction on the Rent Control Court for restoring possession to a tenant by S.11(12) of the Act in case of an order for eviction passed by it under S.11(3) of the Act, also indicates that the mention of the legislature was to confer the jurisdiction to restore possession of the building on the Rent Control Court itself and not to have the dispossessed tenant to approach the Executing Court for relief. 7. In the view I have taken, it appears to me that it is for the Rent Control Court to deal with the application. I therefore set aside the orders of the Principal Munsiff and the District Court and remit the application filed by the tenant to the Principal Munsiff to deal with it in his capacity as the Rent Controller if he still retains that jurisdiction or to transmit it to the appropriate Rent Control Court for decision. Since the tenant has made the application in the form of an execution petition, the tenant is given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit setting forth his case for restoration of possession. The landlord will be given an opportunity to file his objections on merits to the application for restoration. Since the tenant has made the application in the form of an execution petition, the tenant is given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit setting forth his case for restoration of possession. The landlord will be given an opportunity to file his objections on merits to the application for restoration. The Rent Controller will pass appropriate orders on that application without any delay. This original petition is allowed to the above extent. There will be no order as to costs.