The judgment establishes the statutory right of the judgment debtor to get the value of improvements re-assessed under the Kerala Compensation For Tenants Improvements Act, and emphasizes the court's role in preventing the abuse of the process of the court.

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. 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 procee