ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, the landlord has challenged the order of the High Court whereby, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court upheld in the appeal by the District Judge, the eviction petition has been remitted to the Rent Control Court to examine whether the sale deed in favour of the Appellant is a sham transaction.

3. The Appellant sought eviction of the Respondents/tenants under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act") on the ground of his bona fide need for own occupation. The premises in question were purchased by the Appellant from its erstwhile owner Ranjith under a registered sale deed dated 30-9-1995. The premises, a shop was let out to one B.K. Muhammed in the year 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25, which was increased to Rs. 45 from 1985. The said tenant (B.K. Muhammed) expired in 1994 and the eviction petition was filed against his legal representatives, (that is Respondents herein and ten others). Only the Respondents herein (one of the two widows and two of the eleven children) contested the eviction petition. The others remained ex parte. It is not in dispute that the Respondents attorned in favour of the Appellant and paid rents to him.

4. The eviction was sought on the ground that the Appellant has no business of his own and had purchased the premises for the purpose of conducting his own business of Fast Food and cool drinks. The Respondents resisted the eviction petition, by denying the need put forth by the Appellant. They also contended that the sale deed dated 30-9-1995 (Ext. A-1), was a sham document, created with the intention of evicting them. The Rent Control Court allowed the eviction petition by order dated 18-11-2000. It recorded a finding of fact negating the plea of the sale deed being a sham document executed for the purpose of evicting the Respondents. The need of the landlord was held to be bona fide and, accordingly, an order of eviction was made. The Respondents challenged the order of eviction, in an appeal filed under Section 18 of the Act. The Appellate Court, by Judgment dated 4-7-2001, affirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. It held that no tangible evidence was placed by the tenants to show that the Appellant was a friend of the former owner or that there was any collusion between them in an attempt to evict them. The plea of transaction being sham, was rejected by the appellate court as well.

5. The tenants filed a revision petition filed in the High Court under Section 20 of the Act. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 5-11 -2002 set aside the orders of the courts below on two grounds: (i) the courts below failed to attach sufficient importance to the contention of the Respondents that the sale in favour of the Appellant was a sham transaction: and (ii) the landlord had failed to explain how he could purchase a shop measuring about 300 sq. ft. situated in a commercial area in Cochin City at a low price of Rs. 11,000 and therefore, the matter required a further probe. Consequently, it remitted the matter to the Rent Control Court to examine whether the sale in favour of the Appellant was a sham transaction. The High Court placed considerable reliance on the decision of this Court in Devi Dass v. Mohanlal, 1982 (1) S.C.C. 495, In that case the tenant contended that the sale by the original owner in favour of the landlord was sham and had been made with the ulterior motive of evicting the tenant. The appellate authority rejected the tenant's case on the ground that he could not challenge the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of the landlord, not being a party to the deed. The High Court did not advert to the contention at all. In the circumstances, this Court observed:

"An allegation had been made that in reality there was no sale and the sale deed was a paper transaction. The court had to record a finding on this point. The appellate authority however did not pe