The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant is entitled to compensation for improvements and can remain in possession until eviction in execution of a decree or order of court. The court also interpreted the phrase 'the date up to which compensation for improvements has been adjudged in the decree' to allow for compensation for improvements made subsequent to the date of the decree.

1. These Second Appeals were referred to a Full Bench by a common order dated 19-2-1958. The first question for determination is whether a tenant is entitled to be in possession until he is paid not only the amount of compensation embodied in the decree as originally passed but also the compensation granted under sub-section (3) of S.5 of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958.

2. Sub-section [1] of S.4 of the Act [omitting the provisos thereto] provides:

"Every tenant shall, on eviction, be entitled to compensation for improvements which were made by him, his predecessor-in-interest or by any person not in occupation at the time of the eviction who derived title from either of them and for which compensation had not already been paid; and every tenant to whom compensation is so due shall, notwithstanding the determination of the tenancy of the payment or tender of the mortgage money or premium, if any, be entitled to remain in possession until eviction in execution of a decree or order of court:";

and sub-section (3) of S.5:

"The amount of compensation for improvements made subsequent to the date up to which compensation for improvements has been adjudged in the decree and the re-valuation of an improvement, for which compensation has been so adjudged, when and in so far as such re-valuation may be necessary with reference to the condition of such improvement at the time of eviction as well as any sum of money accruing due to the plaintiff subsequent to the said date for rent, or otherwise in respect of the tenancy shall be determined by order of the court executing the decree and the decree shall be varied in accordance with such order."

3. In 1954 KLT. 518 a Division Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court dealt with the question as follows:

"It is argued that there is no express provision in the Tenancy Act, justifying a virtual stay of the execution of the decree in such a situation. No doubt there is no such express provision in the Act. All the same, it is clear that the effect of the provision contained in Clause.3 of S.5 read with clause I of S.4, is to postpone the execution of the decree for delivery of properties until the defendant's claim for value of improvements is finally settled. S.4 states that every tenant shall on eviction be entitled to compensation for his improvements effected on the property and that he is entitled to remain in possession until eviction in execution of a decree or order of Court. The compensation to be paid to him on eviction is not only the compensation adjudged by the decree but will also include the additional amount of compensation that may be fixed by order of the execution court under Clause.3 of S.5. It is also stated in that clause that when an order is passed by the executing court determining the defendant's claim for additional compensation, the decree in the case shall be varied in accordance with that order. Thus the purport of an application presented to the execution court for fixing the additional amount of compensation due to the defendant-tenant, is for a variation of the original decree in accordance with the tenor of the ultimate order that may be passed on such an application. The inevitable consequence following from such an application is a virtual stay of the execution of the decree in the case because until the exact form of the decree as varied in accordance with the order that may be passed on that application is known, the executing court will not be in a position to know the actual amount of compensation to be paid to the tenant as a condition precedent to his eviction from the property. Thus clause I of S.4 read with Clause.3 of S.5 of the Tenancy Act operates by implication as a statutory stay of eviction of the tenant from the holding pending adjudication by the execution court of the claim put forward by him for additional compensation as contemplated by Clause.3 of S.5. The decree holder's prayer for delivery of possession o