Mediated Settlement Agreement Between Landlord & Tenant For Payment Of Rent Arrears Is Executable: Kerala High Court

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed that the compromise agreement is in the nature of a decree passed by the Lok Adalat as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and that when it is recorded in the rent control court's order, the same also partakes the character of an executable decree.

“In the present case, the agreement to pay the balance arrears of rent and enhanced rent…is a decree coming within the provisions of Section 21 of the 1987 Act…the order of the Rent Controller partakes the nature of a decree or an award passed by the Lok Adalat and is capable of execution by the jurisdictional Civil Court in accordance with the pecuniary jurisdiction, it is needless to mention that the settlement agreement culminated in an order is capable of execution,” it observed.

The petitioner before the Court was a landlord, who had approached the rent control court by filing an application as per the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking to evict his tenant from a shop room. He had also sought to get payment of rent during pendency of eviction proceedings.

While so, the rent control court referred the parties to mediation and a settlement agreement was entered between them. As per the terms of the agreement, the tenant was to pay rent and arrears and if he failed to vacate the landlord's shop, the latter can file an execution petition before a civil court. Moreover, until the shop is vacated, the landlord would be entitled to recover enhanced arrears of rent. This was recorded by the rent control court in the order passed by it.

After the tenant failed to pay the rent arrears, the landlord filed an execution petition before the munsiff court for realization of money. The munsiff court dismissed the execution petition holding that the same was not maintainable as the rent control court cannot pass a monetary decree for recovery of arrears. The court relied on Pocker v. Raveendran [2010 (3) KLT 817], wherein it was held that an execution petition for recovery of rent arrears is not maintainable before a munsiff court.

Against the dismissal, the landlord approached the High Court in a revision petition. Since the tenant/respondent did not appear, the Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist it.

The amicus curiae pointed out that the rent control court had referred the parties to the Mediation Centre by exercising the powers under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He added that as Section 89(c), the Mediation Centre is deemed to be a Lok Adalat to which the provisions under the Legal Services Authorities Act would apply.

Therefore, the mediation centre's award would be a decree capable of execution and it would not merely be an order of eviction as per Section 11 of the Rent Control Act for which Section 14 would apply, he added. Reference was made to the decision of the Division Bench in Sindhu A.K. v. Nizar Kochery, stating that the decision is squarely applicable to the present case.

The petitioner/landlord argued that a compromise before a Lok Adalat can be executed as an award as per the Legal Services Authorities Act by approaching a civil court. It was pointed out that Section 14 the Rent Control Act, relating to execution of orders, would not be applicable.

The Court referred to Rules 24 and 25 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2008. As per the Rules, when a settlement is reached between parties, the court that referred them to mediation must fix a date for recording the settlement and passing a decree.

Reverting to the instant case, the Court noted that the rent control court had recorded an “order” acknowledging that the case was ordered in terms of a lawful agreement.

Next, the Court looked at Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, regarding award of Lok Adalat. Relying upon Ummer and Anr. v. Pariparamban Abdul Azeez [2015 (1) KHC 450] as well as the decision referred by the amicus curiae, the Court observed:

“the aforesaid decision which has conclusively held that the settlement agreement culminated in a decree is enforceable and executable as a decree. However, the execution application has to be filed before the appropriate Civil Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the execution petition. Moreover, in Ummer and Another v. Pariparamban Abdul Azeez, a Co- ordinate Bench has held that a compromise before the Lok Adalat between landlord and tenant in a Rent Control Petition can only be executed as per the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act before the appropriate Civil Court having pecuniary jurisdiction over the amount involved in comprise decree.”

The Court, thus, allowed the petition and set aside the munsiff's court order dismissing the execution petition.

Case No: OP(RC) No. 95 of 2026

Case Title: Thomas v. K.K. Mohanan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 435

Counsel for the petitioner: Manumon A., Rebin Vincent Gralan, Suresh C., Anju M. Lohidhakshan, Abida P., Edathara Vineeta Krishnan, Dissy M. D., Santhosh T. P., Rosna M. Joy, Gayathri E.S., Avin Krishna M.P., Athira Suresh, Diljee Girijan, John Christo, T.P. Akshay Kumar C.S., Liniya Loveson, Anjali N.S., Mariya Loovis, Aleesha K. S., Refa, Sreeshma K., Vidya V., Namya Vinodkumar, Athulkrishna T. U., Maheswary S.

Amicus Curiae: S. Vinod Bhat

Click to Read/Download Judgment