JUDGMENT : V. CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. The landlords sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation for one of them under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ['the Act']. The bona fide need alleged is that the petition scheduled premises was required to start a garment manufacturing unit by the fifth petitioner in the rent control petition. The rent control court as well as the appellate authority (after an initial order of remand) upheld the bona fide need alleged and directed the eviction of the tenant from the premises. This Court in a revision petition at the instance of the tenant confirmed the concurrent orders of eviction however granting him a period of eight months to vacate the premises. This was subject to the condition that the tenant files an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period and pay rent till such time. 2. The petitioner herein who is the tenant filed an affidavit of undertaking on 8.4.2019 as directed and availed of the extended time to vacate the premises till the expiry of the period of eight months on 22.9.2019. The fifth petitioner in the rent control petition whose bona fide need was alleged, died in the interregnum on 4.7.2019 and his legal heirs have stepped into his shoes. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of the deceased fifth petitioner in the rent control petition and other landlords who have applied for delivery of the premises in execution. The tenant taking advantage of the death of one of the landlords filed an additional counter statement to the execution petition contending that the bona fide need does not survive. The execution court has by the order impugned overruled the objections of the tenant and has directed the premises to be delivered over to the landlords by deputing an amin. 3. We heard Mr. K.M.Firoz, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. Vinod Bhat, Advocate as amicus curiae. 4. The earlier view was that the bona fide need of the landlord has to be examined as on the date of institution of the proceedings and his subsequent death pending appeal or revision makes no difference. The decisions are: i. Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava [ AIR 2001 SC 803 ] ii. Vinod Bhat, Advocate as amicus curiae. 4. The earlier view was that the bona fide need of the landlord has to be examined as on the date of institution of the proceedings and his subsequent death pending appeal or revision makes no difference. The decisions are: i. Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava [ AIR 2001 SC 803 ] ii. Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das ( AIR 2004 SC 3484 ). The later view is that subsequent developments have to be taken note of pending proceedings of the challenge to the order of eviction and the bona fide need becomes extinct on the death of the landlord. The decisions are: i. Sheshambal v. Chelur Corporation [ (2010) 3 SCC 470 ] ii. Puthenpurayil Mariyam and others v. Sunenda alias Suganda and others [ 2013(2) KHC 213 ]. 5. We need not ponder over the correctness of the above two views as the fact situation in the present case is the execution of an order of eviction of the tenant which has attained finality long ago. Nine months have rolled by since the order passed in revision and there is no pleading either in the execution court or here that the tenant intends to move the Supreme Court. The order of eviction has become final and the fruits of the decree forms part of the estate of the deceased which the legal heirs of the decree holder landlord are entitled to enjoy. This is not a case where the decree itself becomes a nullity by operation of law as in the case of extending the Act over an area which is covered by a decree for eviction passed in a suit. 6. The law is settled in P.V.Papanna and others v. K.Padmanabhaiah [ AIR 1994 SC 1577 ] which followed the decision in Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad [ AIR 1981 SC 1711 ] as follows: “17. For the foregoing discussion, we must hold that events which take place subsequent to the filing of an eviction petition under any Rent Act can be taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication until a decree is made by the final court determining the rights of the parties but any event that takes place after the decree becomes final cannot be made a ground for re-opening the decree. The finality to the dispute culminating in the decree cannot be reopened by the executing court for re-adjudication on the ground that some event or the other has altered the situation. As a corollary thereto it must also be held that once the decree become final it became a part of the estate of the landlord and therefore the appellants as a legal representatives of the deceased landlord are entitled to execute the same.” (emphasis supplied) The decision in Selvaraj v. Kanthaswamy [ 1988 (2) KLT 745 ] that the executing court can declare that the decree for personal need is incapable of execution on the death of the landlord does not lay down the correct law. 7. It is true that the right of the tenant to further challenge the order of eviction is not in any way scuttled by the filing of an affidavit of undertaking (see Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti [ (1998) 6 SCC 507 ]). But we are of the view that the tenant is estopped from claiming the benefit of subsequent developments in the execution proceedings after having filed an affidavit of undertaking. The deceased landlord would have obtained delivery of the premises in execution had not the tenant been granted extended time to vacate on the basis of the undertaking. We do not find any error in the order of the execution court directing the petition scheduled premises to be delivered over which warrants interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction. 8. Mr. Vinod Bhat, Advocate deserves a rich encomium for his role as amicus curiae in the case. The original petition is dismissed in limine. No costs.