JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the order passed on 31.05.2016 in E.P.No.496/2010 in O.S.No.918/1984 of the Additional Munsiff's Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, the second judgment debtor came up with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Originally, a suit for injunction was filed and subsequently it was amended as one for recovery of possession based on the title of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, but in appeal, it was reversed granting a decree for recovery of possession based on title. Thereafter, the decree was put in execution by the decree holder/plaintiff. The judgment debtors/defendants entered appearance and lodged their objection mainly on three grounds challenging the executability of the decree. The first ground is that in respect of the said property earlier a patta was granted on the application made by the judgment debtors by the concerned Land Tribunal and they have got title over an extent of 3 ½ cents of property. The second ground is that they have constructed a building in that property and it was not considered by the First Appellate Court while decreeing the suit. The third ground raised is that the building is situated in an area wherein Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, is made applicable and by virtue of the non-obstante clause incorporated under Section 11(1) of the Act, no eviction can be granted in respect of the building situated in the property. All these grounds were not properly considered by the Execution Court and ultimately ordered delivery of the property based on the decree granted, by its order dated 31.05.2016, which is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Regarding the first issue, the patta, which was issued in the name of judgment debtors, is a pendente lite assignment prior to the passing of the decree by the First Appellate Court, wherein the rights and liabilities of the parties were adjudicated and a decree for recovery of possession based on title was granted. The patta issued, being a pendente lite assignment, is bound by the decree passed. The patta issued, being a pendente lite assignment, is bound by the decree passed. If it is not raised either in the trial court or in the first appellate court, the same cannot be raised at the execution stage firstly on the ground that it is not at all an issue to be considered or adjudicated by the execution court and it is not within the jurisdiction of the execution court to adjudicate an issue which ought to have been raised, either in the trial court or in the appellate court. The jurisdiction vested with the execution court is to find out whether the decree is executable, and if it is found that it is executable, to execute it in accordance with the decree passed and it cannot go beyond the decree or to exercise any excess jurisdiction other than to execute the decree as such. Secondly, a ground which is available to the party as a ground of attack, if not raised, cannot be raised in the execution stage after attaining finality of the decree passed adjudicating the issue in between the parties. The grounds which were available to the party, if not raised, would stand as deemed to have been raised and deemed to have been rejected by virtue of the application of the principles of res judicata as embodied under explanation (IV) to Section 11 CPC. 4. Regarding construction of a building in that property, the very same principle is applicable and when there is a decree for recovery of possession, it would take in everything standing in the property, unless the decree says otherwise, and no independent right can be claimed or permitted to be claimed by the party or any person litigating under them after the culmination of the suit in a decree. 5. Another contention raised by the judgment debtors is that no decree for recovery of possession can be executed since the said property is situated in a place wherein the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short 'the Act') is made applicable and that the non-obstante clause under Section 11(1) of the Act would take away the decree passed in the matter of eviction of tenants. Earlier, the very same persons, who are claiming common right and interest over the property, opted to apply for patta over the property before the Land Tribunal and it was granted. Earlier, the very same persons, who are claiming common right and interest over the property, opted to apply for patta over the property before the Land Tribunal and it was granted. Hence, they are estopped from claiming tenancy over the building situated in the landed property as they have opted for getting a larger interest over the landed property and building thereon by way of patta. This would show that earlier what they have claimed is the right of assignment by virtue of the provisions contained in Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, over the landed property based on a tenancy on land. There are lot of differences between a lease of land and lease of building. The lease of building or tenancy over a building would intake the land appurtenant thereto wherein the building is situated. But, both are different and distinct. Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, prohibits creation of future tenancies on land after the commencement of the Act. But, there is no prohibition for creating lease on building. This would prima facie show the distinction between these two. In both the cases of lease of land and lease of building, the landed property is involved. In the former one, the subject of the lease is the land and not the structures thereon. But, in the latter case, the subject of the lease is the building and not the land, though the expression “building” would intake the land appurtenant thereto. Only the lease on building would come under the purview of Section 11(1) of the Act and the non obstante clause would operate only with respect to the tenancy or lease of building in the matter of eviction. The expression “tenant” engrafted under Section 11(1) of the Act should be understood as the tenant of a building as defined under Section 2(6) of the Act. Further, the expression “recovery of possession” and the expression “eviction” cannot be substituted each other as they are governing different fields. The question of “recovery of possession” would come only with respect to the landed property and the structures thereon. The expression “eviction” stands for evicting the tenant or an occupant of structures situated in the property including the building. Further, the expression “recovery of possession” and the expression “eviction” cannot be substituted each other as they are governing different fields. The question of “recovery of possession” would come only with respect to the landed property and the structures thereon. The expression “eviction” stands for evicting the tenant or an occupant of structures situated in the property including the building. In so far as the lease of land, either created before the commencement of Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, or subsequently, would not come under the non obstante clause incorporated under Section 11(1) of the Act. The person who claimed a benefit by way of lease on land or tenancy over land, cannot subsequently turn down and claim tenancy over the building or lease over the building. Further, a claim of tenancy over the building or lease over the building is not a lesser relief attached to the lease on land. Both are distinct and different. One is resting on landed property being the subject of lease and the other is resting on the structure over the property, namely the building. So, there cannot be any application of non obstante clause under Section 11(1) of the Act, on a lease on land. 6. Yet another question is also came up for consideration that what would be the effect of lease on land created after the commencement of Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and whether it would stand as a lease on building in view of the prohibition contained in Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. What is agreed in between the parties is to give the property on lease, and if it is after the commencement of Kerala Land Reforms Act, the hit of Section 74 of the Act would come into play and in such a situation, the lease would go and the relationship between the parties can only be treated as a permissive one/licence in respect of the landed property and it cannot be brought under the purview of lease on building or tenancy over the building. No other reason is brought to the notice of this Court in order to show any impropriety, illegality or irregularity in the proceedings of the Execution Court and, as such, the petition fails, deserves only dismissal and I do so. No order as to costs.