The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise order for eviction can be considered executable if the Rent Control Court was satisfied that the necessary grounds for eviction existed at the time of passing the order. Additionally, the court clarified that the tenant's contention of no arrears of rent on the date of the eviction petition or the compromise order was not tenable.

1. The revision petitioner is the tenant of a building and the respondent is the landlord. Eviction petition was filed by the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent, for bona fide need and on the allegation that the tenant has already in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirements, in the same city. In the heading to the petition only S.11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act were mentioned. The parties went to trial, evidence was adduced and ultimately on 5-12-1986 a compromise petition dated 1-12-1986 was filed by the parties containing the following terms:

1) The landlord's son has secured a Government job and there is no need of the petition schedule building.

2) The arrears of rent due to the landlord is Rs.8,500/- and tenant shall pay the arrears at a rate of Rs.250/-per month along with another Rs.250/- as rent for the current months.

3) If two consecutive defaults are made in payment of arrears of rent, the landlord shall be entitled to evict the tenant from the building, treating the balance arrears as arrears of rent.

4) The tenant shall be entitled to continue in possession of the plaint schedule building and conduct his trade without causing any damage to the building and if he violates this condition the landlord shall be entitled to evict the tenant.

5) The arrears mentioned above shall be paid every month and the tenant shall obtain receipt for the same from the landlord.

2. On the basis of the above compromise petition filed by the parties the Rent Control Court passed an order dated 5-12-1986 to the following effect:-

"The petitioner and the counter-petitioner filed compromise on 5-12-1986. In the compromise petition it is stated that the petitioner's son had got a government job. Therefore he did not require the building for his own use. The counter-petitioner stated that he shall pay arrears of rent Rs.8,500/- along with the monthly rent of Rs.250/-. If the counter-petitioner has defaulted to pay the rent as stated the petitioner has right to evict the counter-petitioner from the petition schedule building. The counter-petitioner is allowed to conduct business as now exists. Compromise recorded and R.C.P. disposed of in terms of compromise."

3. According to the landlord the tenant committed default in payment of the arrears of rent stipulated in the compromise order and thereupon she filed E.P.No.482/ 87 for execution of the said order. The application was resisted by the tenant on the ground that the order is not executable. The order is a nullity and cannot be executed as the court was not satisfied at the time of passing of the same as to whether any of the conditions necessary for evicting a tenant existed at the time of the order. The order is not an executable one as contemplated by the parties and the compromise will create a new tenancy and eviction can be had only by filing another petition under the provisions of the Rent Control Act In any view of the matter there was no default in complying with the conditions in the order and an such the landlord is not entitled to execute the order. The execution court overruled the objections of the tenant and ordered delivery of the property to the landlord. Against the above order the tenant preferred a revision before the District Court, Trivandrum under the proviso to S.14 of the Act The District Court after elaborately considering various objections confirmed the order of the execution court against which this revision is filed by the tenant

4. Before this court also Mr. K.C. John, counsel for the petitioner, reiterated, all the contentions raised before the courts below. The three questions that arise for consideration are i) whether the Rent Control Court was satisfied as to the existence of any condition necessary for an order of eviction under S.11 of the Act when it passed the compromise order dated 5-12-1986; ii) whether the parties contemplated an ex