STAR FISH EXPORTS AND ANOTHER Vs. V. MAHAMOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order passed under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in an application raising an objection as to the executability of an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 11 (3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Control Act") based on a compromise.

(2.) The tenant filed an application under Sec. 47 mainly raising grounds regarding inexecutability of the order on account of breach of clauses in the compromise. It is therefore appropriate to refer the relevant clauses in the compromise.

(3.) The tenant alleged that he was prevented from vacating the building on 31.2016 on account of the action of the landlord by filing a suit for injunction and therefore, he could not perform his part of the promise to vacate the building on 31.2016. It is the case of the tenant that compromise of eviction is nothing but a contract having imprimatur and the seal of the court and merely because an order of eviction is passed, the terms and conditions of the compromise cannot be ignored. It is submitted that when the date of vacating the building was fixed as 31.2016 and the tenant could not vacate the building on the said date due to the obstruction and prevention on the part of the landlord, and further, performing the promise based on the compromise became impossible. Therefore, the contract has become voidable at the option of the tenant, who was so prevented from performing his part of the contract.