Judgment :- 1. CRP 2133 of 1985 is at the instance of the tenant whereas CRP 971 of 1986 is filed by the landlord. 2. The landlord filed a petition under S.11(2) and S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short the Rent Control Act) for eviction of the tenant from the building in dispute. The Rent Control Court found that the landlord has not been successful in establishing the ground falling under S.11(3) although an order to evict the tenant was passed under S.11(2). On appeal the appellate authority found that the landlord bona fide needs the building for her own occupation. However the matter was remanded for considering the question falling under the second proviso to sub-s. (3) of S.11 of the Rent Control Act. Both the landlord and the tenant filed revisions against the said order; the landlord challenging the order remanding the matter to the Rent Control Court and the tenant challenging the finding that the landlord bona fide needs the building for her own occupation. 3. By a common order the revisional court dismissed the revisions. The above revisions have been filed against the said order. 4. The tenant in his counter statement has stated as follows:- "x x x." It can thus be seen that the definite case of the tenant was that the document under which the landlord claims title to the property evidences a sham transaction and hence no title has passed to the landlord. This aspect of the case does not appear to have been considered either by the appellate court or by the revisional court. Whatever that be the authorities below have not entered a finding on this. Where the order of eviction is passed without entering a finding on the question namely whether or not there was sale of the building enabling the transferee to claim title to the property, the order of eviction would be invalid. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Devidas v. Mohanlal (AIR 1982 SC 1213). That the tenant had raised such a contention that the sale deed in favour of the landlord evidences only a sham transaction, is beyond dispute. For that matter there is nothing on record to show that the landlord has disputed this case of the tenant. 5. That the tenant had raised such a contention that the sale deed in favour of the landlord evidences only a sham transaction, is beyond dispute. For that matter there is nothing on record to show that the landlord has disputed this case of the tenant. 5. It must therefore be held that the authorities below have not approached the issue in the right perspective. The findings of the appellate authority that the landlord bona fide needs the building because that portion of the building that could be used by her is the upstair portion, to which there is no separate access, in the circumstances of the case, requires to be vacated. I accordingly vacate the order of the revisional authority upholding the above findings of the appellate authority. 6. The Rent Control Court accordingly is directed to dispose of the case taking into account the above contentions of the tenant and in the light of observations contained in this order. 7. The orders of the appellate authority except to the extent it pertains to the order of remand and the order of the revisional authority are vacated. The Rent Control Court is directed to dispose of the RCP in the light of the observations contained in the order as expeditiously as possible, in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The C.R.Ps. are disposed of as above. No costs. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.