Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
Jisha C.K., W/o. Rajan P.V. – Petitioner
Versus
K.S. Antony, S/o. Sebastian – Respondent
OP (RC) No. 217 Of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11(3) - Order for eviction - Entered into a compromise - Set aside order - Filed by petitioner seeking for a direction to set aside Ext.P3 order – If parties entered into a compromise, Rent Control Court cannot grant eviction unless court is satisfied with ground for eviction - Para 14.
Finding of the Court: On a perusal of Ext.P3 order, it is seen that Rent Control Court has not made reference to any reason satisfying statutory ground for eviction - It only states about compromise entered into between landlord and tenant, wherein tenant agreed to surrender petition schedule building after 11 months - Landlord has taken steps to rent out tenanted premises to a travel agency on a higher rent - Going by settled position, it is clear that Ext.P3 order passed by Rent Control Court is not in terms of provisions of Act and no satisfaction as to existence of ground of eviction has been recorded - Hence, it is liable to be set aside.
Result: OP(RC) is allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles are as follows:
A tenant can only be evicted if there is a valid ground for eviction at the time the eviction order is passed by the Rent Control Court. The court must be satisfied that the statutory grounds for eviction are established and recorded in the order (!) (!) (!) .
An eviction order based solely on a compromise between landlord and tenant, without the court's explicit satisfaction of the statutory grounds, is not valid. The court must explicitly record its satisfaction that the grounds for eviction under the law exist, even in cases of compromise or settlement (!) (!) (!) .
The order passed on the basis of a compromise must indicate that the court has examined and is satisfied with the existence of the statutory ground for eviction. Merely recording the terms of a settlement or compromise without this satisfaction renders the eviction order invalid (!) (!) .
In cases where the eviction is sought under a statutory provision requiring proof of bona fide need or other specific grounds, the court cannot grant eviction unless it is convinced that such grounds exist at the time of passing the order. The fact that parties entered into a compromise does not automatically suffice; the court must independently verify the grounds (!) (!) .
Even if parties agree to a settlement, the court's role is to ensure that the grounds for eviction are legally established and not just based on mutual consent. Without explicit satisfaction of these grounds, the eviction order is liable to be set aside (!) .
The court has a duty to scrutinize whether the grounds for eviction, as claimed by the landlord, are admitted or established at the time of the order. If not, the eviction order, especially one based on compromise, cannot be legally sustained (!) (!) .
The legal process emphasizes that an eviction order cannot be issued on the basis of a compromise alone if the statutory conditions are not satisfied and recorded. The order must be grounded in the law and supported by the court's satisfaction that the grounds for eviction are present (!) (!) .
In summary, while parties can enter into a compromise regarding eviction, the court must independently verify and record that the statutory grounds for eviction exist at the time of passing the order. Orders lacking this explicit satisfaction are liable to be invalidated.
JUDGMENT :
[Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.]
1. The petitioner is the judgment debtor/tenant in EP No.145 of 2021 in RCP No.1/2018 on the files of the Rent Control Court, North Paravur. The respondent is the decree holder/landlord. The above OP(RC) is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a direction to set aside Ext.P3 order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Rent Control Court, North Paravur.
2. The landlord filed RCP No.1 of 2018 before the Rent Control Court, Paravur, for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”). The bona fide need projected was for conducting a business of soda sarbath, books and stationery. Thereafter, the parties entered into compromise and the matter was settled in mediation. The tenant agreed to surrender vacant possession of the building after 11 months from 07.01.2020 and on surrender, the landlord agreed to pay the advance amount of Rs.15,000/-. On the basis of the settlement arrived at, Ext.P3 compromise order was passed by the Rent Control Court.
3. Later, the petitioner/tenant, on coming to know that the landlord is going to rent out the premises on a higher rent to another person to conduct a travel agency, offered to renew the rent agreement and to pay higher rent and in turn, the landlord agreed to withdraw the execution petition. However, the landlord turned round from his willingness to renew the rent agreement with the petitioner/tenant and it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner/tenant that the landlord is going to rent out the premises to another travel agency. Hence, the petitioner/tenant has come up with this petition to set aside Ext.P3 mediation settlement order stating that the landlord is acting against the settlement arrived at with the petitioner/tenant.
4. On hearing the matter, this Court is of the view that the matter requires a deeper consideration of the issue involved as to whether parties can arrive at a compromise in a petition for eviction without reference to any of the grounds for eviction. Considering the importance of the issue, this Court appointed Adv.P.B.Subramanyan as Amicus Curiae.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and Adv.P.B.Subramanyan, learned Amicus Curiae.
6. Ext.P3 is the order of eviction passed on the basis of a compromise petition filed by the parties. On being convinced that the terms were lawful, the compromise was recorded and Ext.P3 eviction order was passed incorporating the terms of the compromise. The rent control petition for eviction was filed under Section 11(3) of the Act. During the pendency of the rent control petition, the parties were referred for mediation and in mediation, they entered into a compromise on 07.01.2020. The terms of compromise are as follows;
7. On the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, the rent control court passed the following order:
1. The respondent shall surrender vacant possession of petition schedule building to the petitioner after 11 (eleven) months from 07/01/2020.
2. On surrender, the petitioner shall
Tenant can be evicted only if a valid ground for eviction was there at time of passing order for eviction by Rent Control Court.
Compromises in eviction cases must satisfy statutory grounds for eviction as per the Rent Control Act; the court cannot validate compromises that ignore these requirements.
A compromise decree in such cases where eviction is sought under Rent Control Legislation, is capable of execution or not, will depend on the facts of each individual case.
Burden of proof in eviction cases lies with both parties to establish arrears or genuine need.
The absence of renewal of the lease period restricts the tenant's liability to pay rent to the agreed amount, and failure to pay enhanced rent does not amount to wilful default.
Point of Law - Appellate Authority held that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained
The tenant must prove dependency on the rent-controlled property to gain protection under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act against eviction for arrears and bona fide need of landlords.
'Propriety' does not confer power upon High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its consideration of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propr....
No eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction is made out, even if parties had entered into a compromise and that the invalidity on that count can even be raised in execution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
