Case Note & Summary
This revision petition arose from a rent control dispute between a landlord and tenant. The landlord had filed R.C.P. No.50/2023 before the Rent Control Court, Thrissur under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction and other reliefs. During pendency, the matter was referred to mediation on 18.07.2022 under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The parties reached a settlement on 29.08.2022, which included terms for payment of arrears of rent from April 2016 to August 2022, future monthly rent of ₹7,000, five-year lease term, and vacation by September 2027. The Rent Control Court recorded the settlement and passed an order on 03.08.2023 accepting the compromise. When the tenant failed to pay arrears as agreed, the landlord filed execution petition E.P. No.557/2025 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. The executing court dismissed the petition on 16.01.2026 holding that the execution was not maintainable because the settlement agreement was not an order under Section 11 of the Rent Control Act and Section 14 of that Act did not apply; it relied on Pocker v. Raveendran, 2010 (3) KLT 817. The landlord challenged this order in the present revision before the High Court of Kerala. The core legal issue was whether a settlement reached in a court-referred mediation under Section 89 CPC, deemed to be a Lok Adalat award under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, could be executed before a civil court for recovery of arrears of rent, notwithstanding the special execution mechanism under Section 14 of the Kerala Buildings Act. A subsidiary issue was whether the Rent Control Court's order recording the compromise operated as a decree or as a Lok Adalat award. The petitioner argued that the compromise entered before a Lok Adalat between landlord and tenant in a rent control petition can be executed as an award under the 1987 Act before the appropriate civil court having pecuniary jurisdiction, and that Section 14 of the 1965 Act had no application. The petitioner relied on Ummer and Another v. Pariparamban Abdul Azeez, 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 28660. The learned Amicus Curiae, appointed because the respondent was unrepresented, submitted that in terms of Section 89(c) CPC, the Mediation Centre was deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all provisions of the 1987 Act applied; he referred to Sindhu A.K. v. Nizar Kochery, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 10329 and argued that the said decision squarely applied. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008, particularly Rules 24 and 25, which govern recording of settlement and passing of decree. It noted that the settlement agreement was duly signed and submitted, and the Rent Control Court accepted it and ordered that the compromise shall form part of the order. The Court quoted Section 21 of the 1987 Act, which states that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or an order of any other court, and is final and binding. It also referred to Section 20(1)(ii) of the 1987 Act, which enables courts to refer matters to Lok Adalat. The Court observed that the trial court had erred in treating the settlement as an order under Section 11 of the Rent Control Act and in applying Section 14 of that Act, thereby dismissing the execution petition. The reasoning indicated that the mediation settlement was an award under Section 21 LSA Act and hence executable as a civil court decree, not subject to the special execution procedure under the Rent Control Act. The final operative order is not contained in the provided excerpt; accordingly, the ultimate direction is Not mentioned.
Headnote
A) Rent Control Law - Execution of Mediated Settlement - Mediation settlement in rent control dispute is deemed an award of Lok Adalat under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, not an order under Section 11 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965; execution of arrears of rent before civil court having pecuniary jurisdiction is maintainable and Section 14 of the Rent Control Act is not applicable - The trial court dismissed execution petition relying on Pocker v. Raveendran; the High Court distinguished that case as dealing with execution of rent control orders, not Lok Adalat awards, and observed that the settlement agreement recorded on 03.08.2023 should be treated as an award executable as a civil decree (Paras 4-16). B) Alternative Dispute Resolution - Mediation under Section 89 CPC - Sections 89(c), 89(2)(d), 122 CPC; Rule 24 and 25 of Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008 - A mediation settlement reached in a court-referred mediation is deemed to be a Lok Adalat proceeding; the court, after recording settlement under Rule 25, passes a decree in accordance with the settlement; such decree has the force of a civil court decree - The Rent Control Court accepted the settlement agreement on 03.08.2023 and ordered it as part of the order, but the terminology used did not affect its enforceability under Section 21 of LSA Act; execution proceedings for monetary claims should be before the Munsiff Court (Paras 6-14). C) Legal Services Authorities Act - Finality of Lok Adalat Award - Section 21(2) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Awards are final and binding on parties with no appeal; execution is the only remedy - The court noted that the settlement agreement contained terms for payment of arrears, future rent, and vacation; breach of payment terms entitled landlord to execute for recovery with interest as per settlement (Paras 10-11, 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an execution petition for recovery of arrears of rent based on a mediation settlement recorded by the Rent Control Court is maintainable before the Munsiff Court, and whether Section 14 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 applies to execution of a settlement/award under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (provided excerpt does not include final operative order)
Law Points
- Mediation settlement reached under Section 89 CPC deemed Lok Adalat
- Award under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act executable as civil court decree
- Section 14 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act not applicable to Lok Adalat awards
- Execution of monetary claims from rent control mediation maintainable before Munsiff Court
- Pocker v. Raveendran distinguished.
