JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the award, dated 31.03.2010, passed in O.S.No.10 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, the tenth respondent herein, quash the same as illegal, nullity, void ab-initio, unenforceable in a Court of law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 9, their men, agents or any body claiming through them from in any manner taking steps for evicting the petitioners based on the said lok adalat award, dated 31.03.2010.)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed to quash the award passed by the Lok Adalat on 31.03.2010 in O.S.No.10 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, on the ground that it is illegal, null and void, unenforceable in the Court of law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 9 from in any manner taking steps for evicting the petitioner, based upon the said Lok Adalat award, dated 31.03.2010.

Factual Background:

2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Ramadass, who had taken a vacant site of 7 cents on lease from the father of the private respondents, namely, T.P.Kathiresan. According to the petitioner, the said Ramadass was permitted to put up a pakka superstructure and initially it was agreed that the lease will be for a period of three years. The said lease was obtained for the purpose of parking college buses and two wheelers, since the said Ramadass was running an Engineering College and other Educational Institutions.

3. The petitioner has further contended that Kathiresan, who had let out the premises was taking steps to evict him unauthorisedly. Hence, the said Ramadass was forced to file various proceedings including a police complaint. Finally, the said Ramadass had filed O.S.No.10 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, as against the said Kathiresan. In the said suit, Ramadass had contended that the suit schedule premises belongs to the Kathiresan and based on rental agreement, he is in possession of the property. He had further contended in the said suit, that the said Kathiresan is attempting to dispossess him through unlawful means. Hence, the tenant (Ramadass) had prayed for a permanent injunction that he should not be evicted unless by due process of law.

4. The petitioner has further contended that while the said suit was pending, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat on 31.03.2010. A settlement memo was filed by both the parties in which the tenant had agreed that he would vacate the premises on 30.06.2010. In case of failure to vacate the premises, the landlord is at liberty to execute the decree. According to the petitioner, such a settlement was arrived at based on misrepresentation, fraud and coercion played by the landlord. The Presiding Officer of the tenth respondent, namely, the Legal Services Authority have not followed the procedure contemplated under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, before recording such a compromise.

5. The petitioner has further contended that based upon the said compromise, the landlord had filed E.P.No.26 of 2010 to execute the decree and get possession of the property. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.142 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, challenging the validity of the Lok Adalat award. The petitioner also filed E.A.No.27 of 2011 under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the decree is in-executable. E.A.No.27 of 2011 was allowed on 20.10.2011 and the execution petition was dismissed. The landlord had filed C.R.P.No.2275 of 2011 as against the allowing of Section 47 application. The landlord had filed C.R.P.No.2368 of 2010 to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.142 of 2010. Both the Civil Revision Petitions were heard together and both of them were allowed. The order passed by the Execution Court in Section 47 application was set aside and the exe