JUDGMENT 1. - The Petitioner-plaintiff impugnes the order dated 30-10-1996 passed by.the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 4, Jodhpur in execution case No. 70/94 whereby the learned execution Court declined the prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff to include the land in the warrant of possession regarding which the non-petitioner was found guilty of committing nuisance as defined in Section 30(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The controversy lies in a very small compass. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-non-petitioner on several grounds including the ground of alleged nuisance committed by the defendant-non-petitioner regarding which the trial Court framed issue No. 3. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed against the defendant-non-petitioner and the above decree was maintained even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It may further be stated that issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 is as follows:- "Whether the defendant unauthorisedly occupied the excess lands than the rented land? If yes, is he liable to be ejected. 3. Though the plaintiff did not specifically plead the ground of nuisance and envisaged in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, the Court proceeded to decide the issue as an issue of nuisance and the finding was rendered in favour of the plaintiff. The execution application of the plaintiff is pending before the executing Court to execute the decree passed by the trial Court on 24-11-1990 and affirmed by all the superior Courts. 4. When the warrant for possession in respect of the premises regarding which decree for eviction was passed in favour of the plaintiff was issued, the executing Court only mentioned the description of land in terms of the decree. The plaintiff, however, made a request that the warrant of possession must also comprise the land regarding which a finding of nuisance was found against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In other words, the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner was that the executing Court must direct in the warrant of possession delivery of possession of that land which was the subject matter of nuisance, though the same was not the matter of lease. The trial Court declined the same. 5. In other words, the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner was that the executing Court must direct in the warrant of possession delivery of possession of that land which was the subject matter of nuisance, though the same was not the matter of lease. The trial Court declined the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 6. Admittedly a decree-holder, after obtaining a decree for eviction in respect of the demised premises, can claim possession of the demised premises in the same condition in which it was let out. If the defendant does not comply with the decree, the law clothes the plaintiff-decree-holder with the right to seek a legal remedy by filing an execution application and obtaining a warrant of possession of the above demised property. There is no dispute that the executing Court issued warrant conforming to the description of the property as given in the decree. The trial Court correctly declined to accede to the request made by the decree-holder to include the additional land regarding which the plaintiff made an allegation of nuisance against the defendant and the finding was rendered against the defendant after framing issue No. 3 by the trial Court. 7. I am of definite opinion that the grounds as mentioned in Section 13(1) of the Act constitute grounds on which the plaintiff can eject the defendant from the suit premises. However, in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff can only claim possession of the suit or demised premises and nothing more. It was a suit in which the plaintiff only claimed eviction of the defendant from the premises demised to the defendant. Though the nuisance can be a valid ground of eviction but it would not give rise to the plaintiff to claim possession of the land which is admittedly not the subject matter of lease but regarding which a finding of nuisance has been rendered in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court was, therefore, correct in issuing the warrant of possession strictly conforming to the description as given in the decree. 8. I, therefore, find no force in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******