SALIM Vs. FATHIMA MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(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 tenants filed a revision petition filed in the High Court under S.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 SCC 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 :