1. The order for eviction passed by the Controller under Clause.9 of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, does not, and indeed cannot, adjudge any compensation for improvements in favour of the appellant tenant. The court executing that order for eviction under Clause.11 can only execute that order as if it were its own decree and has no jurisdiction to entertain any claim for such compensation. There is nothing in Gomathi Ammal v. Chinakannu Pillai (1954 K.L.T. 278) to support the appellant's contention that he can enforce his claim before the executing court on the other hand that decision makes it clear that neither the Controller nor the court executing the Controller's order for eviction can go into that question. The courts below should have disposed of the appellant's objection on this short ground instead of going into the merits of his claim.

I dismiss the appeal with costs. Dismissed.