JUDGMENT

ORDER. :— Special leave to appeal granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a proceeding for eviction and the tenant is the appellant before us. Respondent Mohanlals claims for ejectment was allowed on the ground that he required the disputed Premises for his own use and occupation. He purchased the building of which the disputed premises is a part on 11th May, 1972 from its original owners Jagiri Lal and Vasudev. The courts below recorded a finding accepting Mohanlals case of requirement and the High Court affirmed that finding. According to the tenant the sale by the original owners in favour of Mohan Lal was not a bona fide one and ,had been made with the ulterior motive of evicting the tenant. The tenants case, as set out in the judgment of the appellate authority, was as follows:

"Learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the finding of the trial court under issue No. 1 has further contended that the sale deed Ex. Al is a sham transaction and no right, title or interest passed to Mohan Lal under this document. In this context it has also been argued that the sale consideration was not received by Jagiri Lal and Vasudev and in fact Jugal Kishore, father of Mohan La