JUDGMENT : [Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.] 1. The petitioner is the judgment debtor/tenant in EP No.145 of 2021 in RCP No.1/2018 on the files of the Rent Control Court, North Paravur. The respondent is the decree holder/landlord. The above OP(RC) is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a direction to set aside Ext.P3 order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Rent Control Court, North Paravur. 2. The landlord filed RCP No.1 of 2018 before the Rent Control Court, Paravur, for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”). The bona fide need projected was for conducting a business of soda sarbath, books and stationery. Thereafter, the parties entered into compromise and the matter was settled in mediation. The tenant agreed to surrender vacant possession of the building after 11 months from 07.01.2020 and on surrender, the landlord agreed to pay the advance amount of Rs.15,000/-. On the basis of the settlement arrived at, Ext.P3 compromise order was passed by the Rent Control Court. 3. Later, the petitioner/tenant, on coming to know that the landlord is going to rent out the premises on a higher rent to another person to conduct a travel agency, offered to renew the rent agreement and to pay higher rent and in turn, the landlord agreed to withdraw the execution petition. However, the landlord turned round from his willingness to renew the rent agreement with the petitioner/tenant and it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner/tenant that the landlord is going to rent out the premises to another travel agency. Hence, the petitioner/tenant has come up with this petition to set aside Ext.P3 mediation settlement order stating that the landlord is acting against the settlement arrived at with the petitioner/tenant. 4. On hearing the matter, this Court is of the view that the matter requires a deeper consideration of the issue involved as to whether parties can arrive at a compromise in a petition for eviction without reference to any of the grounds for eviction. Considering the importance of the issue, this Court appointed Adv.P.B.Subramanyan as Amicus Curiae. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and Adv.P.B.Subramanyan, learned Amicus Curiae. 6. Considering the importance of the issue, this Court appointed Adv.P.B.Subramanyan as Amicus Curiae. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and Adv.P.B.Subramanyan, learned Amicus Curiae. 6. Ext.P3 is the order of eviction passed on the basis of a compromise petition filed by the parties. On being convinced that the terms were lawful, the compromise was recorded and Ext.P3 eviction order was passed incorporating the terms of the compromise. The rent control petition for eviction was filed under Section 11(3) of the Act. During the pendency of the rent control petition, the parties were referred for mediation and in mediation, they entered into a compromise on 07.01.2020. The terms of compromise are as follows; 7. On the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, the rent control court passed the following order: “Petition for eviction on ground U/s.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Respondent has been conducting travel agency in petition schedule building owned by petitioner on the basis of lease agreement dated 27.03.2016. Now, the petitioner has retired from Government Service and he is in need of petition schedule building for conducting the business of Soda Sarbath, Books and Stationery. Thus, this petition. Respondent filed counter statement contesting the petition. Thereafter, parties arrived at a settlement in mediation. Respondent undertook to vacate the building after 11 months from 07.01.2020. The terms of settlement are lawful. Hence, compromise order is liable to be passed on the basis of terms of settlement in mediation. In the result, compromise order is passed as per following terms: 1. The respondent shall surrender vacant possession of petition schedule building to the petitioner after 11 (eleven) months from 07/01/2020. 2. On surrender, the petitioner shall pay advance amount of Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand only) to the respondent. 3. Parties shall bear their respective costs. 4. Mediation report shall form part of the order.” As per the terms of compromise, the tenant agreed to surrender vacant possession of the building after 11 months from 07.01.2020. 8. The learned counsel for the landlord submits that the tenant violated the terms of compromise and failed to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises and hence, execution petition was filed seeking execution of Ext.P3 order. 8. The learned counsel for the landlord submits that the tenant violated the terms of compromise and failed to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises and hence, execution petition was filed seeking execution of Ext.P3 order. It was further submitted that the tenant did not challenge the compromise entered into between them and that, after having enjoyed the benefits of the compromise agreement, the present original petition is filed when the landlord filed the execution petition for eviction of the tenant. 9. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits that after filing of the execution petition, there were talks between the parties and the landlord agreed to renew the rent agreement with the tenant. But, the tenant later came to know that the landlord does not intend to occupy the tenanted premises for his bona fide need, but decided to rent out the tenanted premises to another travel agency on a higher rent. It is further submitted that the landlord made use of the mediation process in order to bypass the statutory requirements of Section 11(3) of the Act and it was believing the words of the landlord that he needs the tenanted premises for his own bona fide need that the tenant agreed for a compromise in mediation. According to the tenant, she depends solely on the tenanted premises for her livelihood. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submitted that the court below did not get an opportunity to consider the merits of the case while passing Ext.P3 order. 10. The issue to be decided is, whether the party can arrive at a compromise in a petition for eviction without reference to any of the grounds for eviction. Ext.P3 order, by which the rent control petition was disposed of recording the terms of compromise, does not refer to any of the grounds for eviction. The compromise petition reveals that the terms agreed upon include the condition to give the petition schedule building to the tenant to conduct her business by enhancing 10% of the rent for another 11 months. Further condition, as per the compromise, was to surrender the tenanted premises on completion of 11 months from 07.01.2020. 11. An order passed on a compromise decree or a decree passed on compromise is nothing, but, a contract having a seal of approval of the court for enforcement. Further condition, as per the compromise, was to surrender the tenanted premises on completion of 11 months from 07.01.2020. 11. An order passed on a compromise decree or a decree passed on compromise is nothing, but, a contract having a seal of approval of the court for enforcement. In rent control petitions, the order of eviction has to be treated slightly different from the compromise decree passed by the civil court. In any compromise entered into before the Rent Control Court, the court will have to enter satisfaction as to the existence of ground of eviction even based on admission. It is always open for the party to agree on terms and conditions, by which such an order can be executed, if such conditions can be agreed upon under law. 12. The learned Amicus Curiae placed before us a catena of decisions such as Star Fish Exports v. Mahamood [2017 (2) KLT SN 11 (C.No.15)]; James v. Grace Thomas [ 2010 (3) KLT 874 ]; Balakrishna Reddiar v. Madhavan Pillai [ 1978 KLT 495 ]; Gangadharan Pillai v. Chidambara Iyer [ 1979 KLT 735 ]; Thomas v. Easo [ 1999 (1) KLT 138 ]; Central Bank of India v. Beena Thiruvenkitam [ 2019 (3) KLT 254 ] etc. and argued that the Rent Control Courts, while ordering eviction, are duty bound to record satisfaction of the ground for eviction. 13. In Thomas (supra), this Court held that the order of eviction passed subsequent to the compromise petition without reference to the second proviso is against the Act and cannot be executed. In Star Fish Exports (supra) rendered by one among us [AMM(J)], it was held as follows; “In any civil decree based on a compromise, it is open for the parties to have compromise for performance based on promises and reciprocal promises. However, compromise in eviction under the Rent Control Act is different from a compromise entered under Order XXIII of CPC. The Rent Control Legislation restricts unauthorised eviction otherwise than based on the b' ground provided under Section 11 of the Rent Control Act. Even if parties enter into a compromise, the Rent Control Court cannot grant eviction unless the court is satisfied about the ground for eviction. In a ground for eviction under Section 11(3), the landlord has to prove bona fide need for his own occupation or occupation of his dependent. Even if parties enter into a compromise, the Rent Control Court cannot grant eviction unless the court is satisfied about the ground for eviction. In a ground for eviction under Section 11(3), the landlord has to prove bona fide need for his own occupation or occupation of his dependent. However, no eviction can be granted if that tenant c -proves that he is depending upon the building for his livelihood and there are no building available in the locality for shifting.” In Balakrishna Reddiar (supra), it was held as follows; “There is do taboo against a compromise order for eviction, but compromise or no compromise, a tenant can be evicted only if a valid ground for eviction was there at the time of passing the order for eviction by the Rent Control Court. In the case of a compromise order for eviction, the executing court has got a duty to see whether the ground taken by the landlord was admitted by the tenant and the Rent Control Court which passed the order of eviction was aware of the existence of such a valid ground.” In Central Bank of India (supra), it was held as follows; “The court is to be satisfied that whether a statutory ground for eviction has been pleaded which the tenant has admitted by the compromise. If the court does not find the permissible grounds for eviction disclosed in the pleadings and other materials on the record, no consent or compromise will give jurisdiction to the court to pass a valid order of eviction. The Rent Control Court is not competent to pass an order for possession with the consent of the parties on a ground which is dehors the Act or ultra vires the Act. The existence of one of the statutory grounds mentioned in the Act is a sine qua non to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Control Court. Even parties cannot by their consent confer such jurisdiction on the court to do something which according to the legislative mandate, it could not do. No doubt, the court can pass an order for eviction on the basis of the compromise. But, order of eviction cannot be based merely on an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. Even parties cannot by their consent confer such jurisdiction on the court to do something which according to the legislative mandate, it could not do. No doubt, the court can pass an order for eviction on the basis of the compromise. But, order of eviction cannot be based merely on an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The compromise must indicate either on its face or in the background of other materials in the case that the tenant expressly or impliedly agreed to suffer a decree for eviction because the landlord is entitled to have such an order under the law. In cases where protection under a Rent Act is available, no eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction is made out, even if parties have entered into a compromise.” 14. Hence, it is clear from the aforementioned judgments that even if the parties entered into a compromise, the Rent Control Court cannot grant eviction unless the court is satisfied with the ground for eviction and have to record satisfaction of the ground for eviction. On a perusal of Ext.P3 order, it is seen that the Rent Control Court has not made reference to any reason satisfying the statutory ground for eviction. It only states about the compromise entered into between the landlord and the tenant, wherein the tenant agreed to surrender the petition schedule building after 11 months from 07.01.2020. Even in the agreement of compromise entered into between the parties, there is no satisfaction recorded as to the existence of ground of eviction. In the present case, it is the specific case of the petitioner/tenant that the landlord has taken steps to rent out the tenanted premises to a travel agency on a higher rent. Going by the settled position, it is clear that Ext.P3 order passed by the Rent Control Court is not in terms of the provisions of the Act and no satisfaction as to the existence of ground of eviction has been recorded. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 15. Before we conclude, we place on record the assistance rendered to us by the learned Amicus Curiae. In the result, the OP(RC) is allowed. Ext.P3 is set aside. RCP No.1 of 2018 on the files of the Rent Control Court, North Paravur is restored to file. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 15. Before we conclude, we place on record the assistance rendered to us by the learned Amicus Curiae. In the result, the OP(RC) is allowed. Ext.P3 is set aside. RCP No.1 of 2018 on the files of the Rent Control Court, North Paravur is restored to file. The Rent Control Court is directed to consider and pass orders in RCP No.1 of 2018 on merits, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Control Court, North Paravur on 06.03.2023.