V. NEELADRI RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision petition. Both the Courts below held that there was default in payment of rent from March, 1978 as pleaded for the eviction petitioner. While the Rent Controller held that there was no sub-letting, the Appellate Court held that there was sub-letting without the consent of the landlord. The said finding was given by the Appellate court, though the eviction petitioner had not filed any cross-objections.

( 2 ) THE points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the respondent-landlord can support the order of eviction by canvassing the correctness of the findings held against him, even though he had not preferred cross-objections; and (2) Whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings; (a) that there was wilful default in payment of rent from March 1978; and (b) that there was subletting without the written consent of the landlord. POINT No. 1:

( 3 ) SECTION 20 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Rent Control Act") provides for an appeal as against the order passed by the Rent Controller. It-does not refer to cross-objections.

( 4 ) IT was held in Iswarayya v. Iswarayya, AIR 1931 PC 234 that there was no need for the respondent in the appeal to prefer cross-objections, when the impugned order/decree is in his favour, though some of the findings are against him. The wife in that case, filed two petitions for alimony for herself and for maintenance of her children. One decree was passed on those two applications. Rs. 30. 00per month was ordered for the eldest girl and Rs. 40. 00 for each of the other 3 children and thus in all Rs. 150. 00 was awarded for the children, an amount of Rs. 160. 00 per month was awarded for the wife. The said decree was passed, when a sum of not less than Rs. 300. 00per month was prayed for the maintenance of the children and Rs. 260. 00 per month was claimed for the alimony of the wife. When the matter had come up before the High Court in the appeal, the High Court opined that since the children had all ceased to be minors within the meaning of Divorce Act, 1869, no provision could be made for them. But upon the facts of the case, the High Court felt that the wife s alimony should be increased to Rs. 260. 00 per month as claimed by her. Then it was urged before the Privy Council that as the wife had not preferred any appeal or cross-objections against the decree for alimony at Rs. 160. 00 per month, the High Court erred in enhancing it at Rs. 260. 00per month. While adverting to the said contention, the Privy Council observed"that there was no reason why the wife should appeal from the order, which the District Judge had made; there was every reason why she should be satisfied therewith. "it was stated that the Appellate Court could enhance the alimony of Rs. 260. 00in that case in exercise of the power conferred under 0. 41, R. 33, CPC, though no cross-objections were preferred by the wife.

( 5 ) IN Seetaram v. Ramabai, AIR 1958 Madh Pra 224 the relevant facts considered are as under:

( 6 ) EVICTION was claimed on 3 grounds : (1) wilful default, (2) requirement of the building for effecting repairs and reconstruction and (3) sub-lease without the permission of the landlord. The Rent Controller therein held against the landlord in regard to first two grounds, but ordered eviction on the ground of sub-lease. The tenant preferred the appeal. When the landlord sought the canvass the correctness of the findings in regard to grounds 1 and 2 before the Appellate Court in order to support the order of eviction, he was not permitted to do so. He then challenged it by preferring writ petition. It was held therein that "on general principles, a party who has an order his favour is entitled to show that the order is justified on some ground, which was decided against him in the Court below. By referring to Iswarayya s case (AIR 1931 PC 234) (supra), it was observed that"there was no r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document