Execution of Lok Adalat awards is governed by specific principles, emphasizing that eviction must follow due process through a suit, not an execution petition.

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 11.03.2024 passed in E.A.No.152 of 2023 in E.P.No.216 of 2023 in O.S.No.1485 of 2002 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, a judgment debtor, filed a petition, vide E.A.No.152 of 2023, under Section 47 read with 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the maintainability of the execution petition filed by the decree holder. The firm of the respondent, M/s. Srinivasa Steel Traders and Hardware, was a tenant in a property, and a suit was filed by the father of the decree holder for eviction. The matter was settled through a compromise, and a registered lease deed was executed for 15 years. The respondent claimed that the terms of the compromise had been fully discharged, and the contract of tenancy had merged into the lease deed. The respondent also argued that the decree holder had no right to terminate the lease before the lease period and that delivery of possession could only be sought if there was a violation of the lease terms.

3. The petitioner/decree holder filed a counter affidavit before the trial Court, disputing the allegations of the respondent as false and fabricated. The decree holder claimed that the execution petition was filed based on a Lok Adalat award obtained by mutual consent. According to the award, the respondent was required to hand over vacant possession of the shop to the decree holder by the end of July, 2023.

4. The trial Court after hearing both sides and considering the arguments and judgments relied upon by both parties allowed the petition vide order dated 11.03.2024, observing that the execution petition was not maintainable as the parties had entered into a fresh registered lease deed, which superseded the earlier award. Since there were no violations of the lease terms, the decree holder could not seek eviction without issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act . Furthermore, the respondent had filed a suit for specific performance seeking renewal of the lease period, which was pending adjudication. In view of the decisions in Sudhir Kumar vs. Baldev Krishna Tapar and Mudra Gopala Krishna vs. M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, the trial Court held that the compromise decree was not executable. Consequently, the execution petition was dismissed.

5. Heard Sri Aravind Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri R. A. Achuthanand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is a gross miscarriage of justice, reflecting an illegal exercise of jurisdiction and determination of the dispute not in accordance with law and that the order suffers from multiple flaws, including failure to consider the merits of the case, ignoring crucial documents and evidence, and misapplying the law. He further submitted that the executing Court erred in holding that the compromise decree was not executable, and its reasoning was based on incorrect assumptions and inapplicable legal precedents and that the Court failed to address the contentions of the petitioners, neglected to consider the collective and conjoint reading of the Lok Adalat Award and the registered lease deed, and overlooked the quintessential facts of the case. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

7. In support of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of relevant paragraphs are reads as follows:

i