JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner challenges the award dated 7.2.2014 passed by the Lok Adalat organized by the District Legal Services Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is a tenant of the building owned by respondent No.2. In 2013, respondent No.2, the Landlady, approached the District Legal Services Authority (for short `DLSA’), Thiruvananthapuram, by filing a pre-litigation complaint as PL.No.3928/2013. On receipt of notice in the matter, the petitioner appeared before the DLSA. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Lok Adalat on 7.2.2014 passed Ext.P1 award based on a compromise entered into between the parties on 31.1.2014 whereby the petitioner agreed to vacate the building on 30.4.2016 and also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month as rent till then. However, the petitioner did not vacate the building as agreed and thereby failed to comply with the terms of the award. The petitioner then filed O.S.No.839 of 2016 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent No.2 and others. Respondent No.2 filed E.P.No.291/2016 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to execute Ext.P1 award. 3. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 award on the following grounds:- i) The Lok Adalat can consider only cases referred to it by a Court as defined in Section 2(aaa) of the Legal Services Authorities Act. ii) The Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain matters under the purview of Rent Control Laws. iii) An award of eviction passed by the Lok Adalat inconsistent with Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is not executable. iv) The petitioner/tenant was not aware of the true legal consequences of the compromise stated to have been entered into between the parties. v) The Lok Adalat has no power to act upon a compromise entered into between the parties outside the said forum. 4. Respondent No.2 resisted the original petition contending that the petitioner had voluntarily undertaken to vacate the building as per the compromise dated 31.1.2014 and presented the same before the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat on 7.2.2014, agreeing to surrender the building on or before 30.4.2016. The petitioner had also undertaken to pay the monthly rent as agreed. 4. Respondent No.2 resisted the original petition contending that the petitioner had voluntarily undertaken to vacate the building as per the compromise dated 31.1.2014 and presented the same before the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat on 7.2.2014, agreeing to surrender the building on or before 30.4.2016. The petitioner had also undertaken to pay the monthly rent as agreed. The contention of the petitioner that she had not understood the consequences of the compromise entered into between the parties is baseless. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the original petition have no legal sanctity. The Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction to pass an award concerning a subject matter coming under the Rent Control Act. 5. This Court appointed the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.Viswanathan as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. 6. Heard Sri. K.B. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. J.Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. P. Viswanathan, the Amicus Curiae. 7. The first challenge of the petitioner is that the Lok Adalat can consider only cases referred to it from a Court as defined in Section 2(aaa) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as `the LSA Act, 1987’). 8. The LSA Act, 1987 was enacted to provide free legal aid in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution of India. Lok Adalat is defined under Section 2(d) of the LSA Act, 1987, according to which `Lok Adalat’ means a Lok Adalat organized under Chapter VI. Section 19 provides the organization of Lok Adalats. 9. Section 19 of the LSA Act, 1987 reads thus:- “19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.—(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. Organisation of Lok Adalats.—(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. (2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of— (a) serving or retired judicial officers; and (b) other persons, of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat. (3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. (4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. (5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of— (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised: Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.” (emphasis added) As per Section 19(5) of the LSA Act, 1987, Lok Adalat has the authority to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute at both the pre-litigation and pending litigation stages. Cases that could be settled under Section 19(5) of the LSA Act, 1987 could be referred to respective Lok Adalats under Section 20 of the Act if one of the parties makes an application before the Court and the Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of settlement or if the Court is suo motu satisfied that the matter is appropriate to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. Sub-section (ii) of Section 19(5) of the Act provides that any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat and is not before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised can be referred to the Lok Adalat having jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement. The proviso to Section 19(5)(ii) provides that the Lok Adalat cannot take cognizance of matters not compoundable under any law. 10. In Merlin and Another v. Yesudas and Others ( 2007 (2) KHC 482 = ILR 2007 (2) Ker. 331), this Court held that by virtue of Section 19(2) of the LSA Act, 1987, when a Lok Adalat is organised for any Court, any matter falling within the jurisdiction of that Court, but is not brought before it, can be determined by such Lok Adalat, to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to such a dispute. This Court further held that the only exception to that situation is that embodied in the proviso occurring after sub-section (5) of Section 19, which provides that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. This Court further held that all types of litigations that can be entertained by the Civil Courts are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat also, without any restriction being imposed. This principle is further fortified by the non-obstante clause in sub-section (2) of Section 20 which enjoins the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat to refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for determination. The necessary conclusion is that except in cases where it is a case or a matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law, the Lok Adalat shall have the jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement in respect of such matters which fall within its jurisdiction. 11. The necessary conclusion is that except in cases where it is a case or a matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law, the Lok Adalat shall have the jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement in respect of such matters which fall within its jurisdiction. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain matters coming under the purview of the Rent Control Act as the same being a special law. 12. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 confers the Statute an overriding effect over any other law or contract. As stated above, sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the LSA Act, 1987 confers the competent authority referred to therein, the power to refer a matter brought before it to the Lok Adalat for determination. Section 25 of the LSA Act, 1987 also contains a non-obstante clause giving an overriding effect to the Act over any other law. Therefore, both the Rent Control Act and the LSA Act, 1987 are special laws containing provisions conferring overriding effect. 13. The general principle is that when two special laws contain provisions conferring overriding effect, the later Statute will prevail. The LSA Act, 1987 is intended to bring out settlement and compromise, avoiding lengthy litigation between the parties. Concerning settlement and compromise between the tenant and landlord, the Rent Control Act, placed in juxtaposition with the LSA Act, is a general Statute. Therefore, the provisions of LSA Act have an overriding effect. This view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in LIC v. D.J.Bahadur (1981 KHC 496 = AIR 1980 SC 2181 ) and the decision of this Court in Hamza P. v. Canara Bank, Shornur Branch ( 2017 (5) KHC 713 = 2017 (4) KLT 1024 ). 14. It is also profitable to refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ummer and Another v. Pariparamban Adbul Azeez ( 2015 (1) KHC 450 = 2015 (1) KLT 596 ). In the said decision, the question regarding the execution of an award passed by the Lok Adalat was considered. The Division Bench held that even if no grounds under Section 11 of the Rent Control Act are involved, the parties could arrive at a settlement. In the said decision, the question regarding the execution of an award passed by the Lok Adalat was considered. The Division Bench held that even if no grounds under Section 11 of the Rent Control Act are involved, the parties could arrive at a settlement. It is also relevant to refer to Section 25 of the LSA Act, 1987, which empowers the Act to override inconsistent provisions contained in various Statutes before enacting of the LSA Act, 1987. Therefore, Section 25 removes inconsistency arising from Section 11 of the Rent Control Act, 1965. The resultant conclusion is that Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain matters coming under the purview of the Rent Control Act, and an award of eviction can be passed by the Lok Adalat inconsistent with the provisions of Section 11 of the Rent Control Act. 15. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P1 award passed inconsistent with the Rent Control Act is not executable. Section 21 of the LSA Act, 1987 provides that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court. Section 21 reads thus:- “21. Award of Lok Adalat.-(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award.” 16. In Ummer (supra), the Division Bench held that the parties, having settled all their disputes and differences before the Lok Adalat, it cannot be said that it is an order under Section 11(3) of the Rent Control Act. The Division Bench also held that the parties could settle their disputes in respect of the whole issue between them, including the dispute concerning the repayment of the advance amount made by the landlord, and the award so passed is acceptable under Section 21 of the LSA Act, 1987. 17. The Division Bench also held that the parties could settle their disputes in respect of the whole issue between them, including the dispute concerning the repayment of the advance amount made by the landlord, and the award so passed is acceptable under Section 21 of the LSA Act, 1987. 17. In Govindan Kutty Menon K.N. v. C.D.Shaji ( 2011 (4) KHC 722 = AIR 2012 SC 719 ), the Apex Court held that given the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and as such it is executable by that Court. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner/tenant had not understood the true legal consequences of the compromise, and the compromise entered into between them outside the Lok Adalat could not be made part of the terms of an award passed by the Lok Adalat. 19. The impugned award reads thus:- “Both parties present. Matter has been settled. A compromise petition signed by both the parties has been filed. As per the compromise, the C.P. has to give vacant possession of the building and premises and key of the building on 30.4.2016. This petition is closed on the basis of the condition adumbrated in the agreement. And this agreement will be treated as full and final settlement between the parties regarding the conditions adumbrated in the agreement. This petition is closed as above.” 20. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, relying on Regulation 17(2) of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009, contended that drawing of an award is merely an administrative act, and the parties can enter into a compromise or settlement under the guidance of the Lok Adalat. Regulation 17 of the NALSA Regulations reads thus:- “17. Award.--(1) Drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties under the guidance and assistance from Lok Adalat. (2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award (see a specimen at Appendix-I). Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local Courts or in English. (2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award (see a specimen at Appendix-I). Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local Courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of Court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation 20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature. (3) In cases referred to Lok Adalat from a Court, it shall be mentioned in the award that the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled to refund of the Court fees remitted. (4) Where the parties are not accompanied or represented by counsel, the members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify the identity of parties, before recording the settlement. (5) Member of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the following before affixing their signatures: (a) that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided; and (b) that the parties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. (6) Members of the Lok Adalat should affix their signatures only in settlement reached before them and should avoid affixing signatures to settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc. (7) Lok Adalat shall not grant any bail or a divorce by mutual consent. (7) Lok Adalat shall not grant any bail or a divorce by mutual consent. (8) The original award shall form part of the judicial records (in pre-litigation matter, the original award may be kept with the Legal Services Authority or committee, concerned) and a copy of the award shall be given to each of the parties duly certifying them to be true by the officer designated by the Member-Secretary or Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee or District Legal Services Authority or, as the case may be, the Chairman of Taluk Legal Services Committees free of cost and the official seal of the Authority concerned or Committee shall be affixed on all awards.” 21. Regulation 17(1) provides that drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the compromise or settlement as agreed by the parties. The procedure to be followed in drawing up an award as per the regulations can be summarized thus:- “(a) The Lok Adalat only guides and assists the parties to reach a settlement or compromise. (b) It is the duty of the Lok Adalat to ensure that the parties fully understood the terms of the settlement or compromise before it is recorded. (c) The terms of the settlement or the compromise shall be reduced into writing. (d) The award shall be written in regional language used in the local Courts or in English. It shall contain the particulars of the case, namely, the number of the case, the name of the Court, the names of the parties, date of receipt of the case by the Adalat, the number assigned to it in its permanent register and the date of the settlement. (e) Both parties shall sign or affix their thumb impressions in it. (f) Where the parties are represented by counsel, they shall also be required to sign the settlement. (g) The members of the Lok Adalat shall countersign it. (h) The document containing the terms of the settlement or compromise becomes an award when the parties sign or affix their thumb impressions in it and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it.” [See: Sunil K.S. v. Sherly and Another ( 2016 (4) KHC 397 = ILR 2016 (3) Ker. 915)] In the present case, the parties had drawn up a compromise on 31.1.2014. 915)] In the present case, the parties had drawn up a compromise on 31.1.2014. The compromise so drawn up and signed by the partieswas produced before the Lok Adalat on 7.2.2014. Both parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and affixed their signatures in the award or settlement before the Members of the Lok Adalat. The Members of the Lok Adalat also affixed their signatures. It is evident from the impugned award that the Members of the Lok Adalat verified the identity of the parties and ascertained that they voluntarily entered into the settlement based on the agreement they arrived at on 31.1.2014. This Court finds nothing violating the regulations in the award under dispute. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to incorporate the terms of a compromise entered into between the parties outside the forum to make it binding on the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Sunanda and Others v. Sundaran ( 2020 (3) KLJ 717 ) to substantiate his contention. In Sunanda (supra), a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3, CPC, was filed before the Sub Court in a suit. The suit was referred to Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat treated the said petition as a compromise and passed an award. The defendants in the suit did not sign the award. In the said decision, this Court held that if an award is passed in the absence of parties, the Members of the Lok Adalat do not get an opportunity to ascertain whether they have signed after understanding the award or settlement or not and also as to whether they have entered into a settlement voluntarily or not and hence award passed in the absence of parties cannot be said to be legal and correct. In Sunanda (supra) the award was drawn up by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise filed before the Court, and the award was not signed by the defendants in the suit. In the said circumstances, this Court held that the award passed on the basis of a settlement reached outside the Lok Adalat is not in accordance with law. The decision in Sunanda (supra) is distinguishable on facts. The petitioner in the present case failed to bring forth any violation of Regulation 17. In the said circumstances, this Court held that the award passed on the basis of a settlement reached outside the Lok Adalat is not in accordance with law. The decision in Sunanda (supra) is distinguishable on facts. The petitioner in the present case failed to bring forth any violation of Regulation 17. When the dispute is settled between the parties under the guidance and assistance of Lok Adalat, it is not open to any of the parties to the award to contend later that he did not comprehend the true nature and spirit of the compromise. 23. As per Section 21(2) of the LSA Act, 1987, no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award passed by the Lok Adalat. The consequence is that the award shall be final and binding on all parties to the case. The finality so attained cannot be permitted to be destroyed, as it would amount to defeating the very aim and object of the Act with which it has been enacted. It is trite that the challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be entertained on very limited grounds. The petitioner has not raised any grounds sufficient to exercise the power of judicial review to interfere with Ext.P1 award of the Lok Adalat. The original petition lacks merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.