JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner challenges the award dated 7.2.2014 passed by the Lok Adalat organized by the District Legal Services Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner is a tenant of the building owned by respondent No.2. In 2013, respondent No.2, the Landlady, approached the District Legal Services Authority (for short `DLSA’), Thiruvananthapuram, by filing a pre-litigation complaint as PL.No.3928/2013. On receipt of notice in the matter, the petitioner appeared before the DLSA. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Lok Adalat on 7.2.2014 passed Ext.P1 award based on a compromise entered into between the parties on 31.1.2014 whereby the petitioner agreed to vacate the building on 30.4.2016 and also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month as rent till then. However, the petitioner did not vacate the building as agreed and thereby failed to comply with the terms of the award. The petitioner then filed O.S.No.839 of 2016 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent No.2 and others. Respondent No.2 filed E.P.No.291/2016 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to execute Ext.P1 award.

3. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 award on the following grounds:-

i) The Lok Adalat can consider only cases referred to it by a Court as defined in Section 2(aaa) of the Legal Services Authorities Act.

ii) The Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain matters under the purview of Rent Control Laws.

iii) An award of eviction passed by the Lok Adalat inconsistent with Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is not executable.

iv) The petitioner/tenant was not aware of the true legal consequences of the compromise stated to have been entered into between the parties.

v) The Lok Adalat has no power to act upon a compromise entered into between the parties outside the said forum.

4. Respondent No.2 resisted the original petition contending that the petitioner had voluntarily undertaken to vacate the building as per the compromise dated 31.1.2014 and presented the same before the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat on 7.2.2014, agreeing to surrender the building on or before 30.4.2016. The petitioner had also undertaken to pay the monthly rent as agreed. The contention of the petitioner that she had not understood the consequences of the compromise entered into between the parties is baseless. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the original petition have no legal sanctity. The Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction to pass an award concerning a subject matter coming under the Rent Control Act.

5. This Court appointed the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.Viswanathan as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

6. Heard Sri. K.B. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. J.Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. P. Viswanathan, the Amicus Curiae.

7. The first challenge of the petitioner is that the Lok Adalat can consider only cases referred to it from a Court as defined in Section 2(aaa) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as `the LSA Act, 1987’).

8. The LSA Act, 1987 was enacted to provide free legal aid in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution of India. Lok Adalat is defined under Section 2(d) of the LSA Act, 1987, according to which `Lok Adalat’ means a Lok Adalat organized under Chapter VI. Section 19 provides the organization of Lok Adalats.

9. Section 19 of the LSA Act, 1987 reads thus:-

“19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.—(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Comm