IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 621 of 2009() --------------------- EP.6/2009 IN OS.171/2007 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDERS: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SELMA, AGED 55, W/O. KOCHUMON, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHACHANTHA BHAGOM, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE. 2. KOCHUMON, AGED 61, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHANCHANTHA BHAGOM, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): JUDGEMENT DEBTORS: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.M.RAHIM,AGED 43, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHANCHANTHA BHAGOM, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE. 2. ASKKAR RAHIM, AGED 27, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHANCHANTHA BHAGOM, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.T.I.ABDUL SALAM THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.621 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 23/06/2009 in E.P No.6 of 2009 in O.S No.171 of 2007 passed by the learned Munsiff, Kanjirappally. Above execution petition filed by the petitioner, the defendant in the above suit, on the basis of a compromise decree provided for eviction of the respondent/plaintiff from the schedule building was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, holding, such a compromise decree is inexecutable as it is against the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the court below holding that under the compromise decree the respondent/tenant cannot be evicted is unsustainable under law and facts. Suit in which the compromise decree was passed is one filed seeking a decree of injunction by the tenant/respondent restraining the petitioner/landlord from forcibly evicting him from the schedule building. A compromise was entered by the parties by which the tenant agreed to C.R.P.No. 621 OF 2009 Page numbers surrender the building after the period fixed, and in accordance with thereof, a compromise decree was also passed. The decree provided for surrender of vacant possession by the tenant after the expiry of the period provided. The compromise decree was sought to be executed through court by the petitioner/landlord to evict the tenant/respondent from the building. There is no dispute that the building is situate in an area where Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is applicable. When that be so, overlooking the provisions of that Act, no eviction of the tenant is permissible through execution of the compromise decree by the civil court as there is an interdiction under Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act that a tenant cannot be evicted otherwise than on satisfaction of any of the grounds covered by Section 11 of that Act. The order passed by the court below declining execution of the compromise decree is proper, valid and correct and it does not call for any interference. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv