JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act), is the petitioner in this original petition. The respondent is the landlord. The question that falls for consideration in this matter is as to the maintainability of the petition instituted by the respondent to execute the order obtained by him in the proceedings for eviction.

2. Before considering the question, it is necessary to outline the essential facts. The subject matter of the proceedings is a premises situated within the territorial limits of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, as agreed to by the parties, the matter was referred for mediation to the Ernakulam Mediation Centre, and the dispute was amicably settled. Ext.P1 is the settlement agreement executed between the parties at the mediation. It was agreed by the petitioner that vacant possession of the premises will be handed over to the respondent on or before 13.12.2021. It was also agreed that the arrears of rent due to be paid by the petitioner as on 31.08.2021 is Rs.75,00,000/-and that the petitioner will liquidate a portion of the same by transferring a property owned by her and situated in Kottayam District in favour of the respondent for a value to be determined by a valuer and accepted by the parties and remit the balance in 36 monthly instalments on or before 12.09.2024. It was also agreed that if the petitioner fails to agree for appointment of a valuer to value the property or transfer the property or pay the deficit amount, the respondent would be free to approach the court for getting the settlement agreement executed or to file a suit for realisation of the amount or specific performance of the settlement agreement. Ext.P1 settlement agreement has been accepted by the Rent Control Court and the eviction petition was disposed of in terms of the settlement on 30.09.2021. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the Rent Control Court in this regard.

3. Even though the petitioner surrendered vacant possession of the premises pursuant to the settlement agreement, the property agreed to be transferred towards arrears of rent has not been transferred by the petitioner to the respondent. The petitioner has also not paid to the respondent the arrears of rent due by other means. The respondent, in the circumstances, instituted Ext.P3 execution petition before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam and got it transferred to Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, within whose jurisdiction the property agreed to be sold is situated, to enforce Ext.P1 settlement agreement. On receipt of notice in the execution petition, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 application before the execution court seeking orders dismissing Ext.P3 execution petition as not maintainable. This original petition is instituted thereafter invoking Article 227 of the Constitution seeking orders declaring that Munsiff's Court, Kottayam lacks jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P3 execution petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent as also the learned Amicus Curiae appointed in the matter.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P1 settlement agreement is unenforceable since the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to dispose of an eviction proceedings in favour of the landlord unless it holds that one or other grounds prescribed in the Act exist in the case, and such a finding has not been rendered by the Rent Control Court in Ext.P6 order. It was also argued by the learned counsel alternatively that the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, at any rate, cannot deal with Ext.P3 execution petition for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Rent Control Court is empowered to make a reference of a pending eviction proceedings for mediation, and if the matter is settled at the mediation, the Rent Control Court will certainly