( 1 ) THE original landlord has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (the Act for brief) for challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad on 13/08/1979 in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1977. Thereby the Appellate Court was pleased to accept the appeal of the tenant and to set aside the decree for possession of the rented premises passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court (Court No. 7) at Ahmedabad on 16/12/1976 in H. R. P. Suit No. 3767 of 1971. It may be mentioned that the learned Trial Judge had decreed the landlords suit for possession of the rented premises on the ground of acquisition of a suitable residence by the tenant after coming into force of the Act.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revisional application move in a narrow compass. The dispute centres round the ground floor of the building bearing Survey No. 2705 and Municipal Census No. 2412 (the suit property for convenience ). The petitioner is its owner and the respondent is its tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 21. 00. The present petitioner filed one suit against the present respondent in the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad for possession of the suit property on the ground of change of user bona fide and reasonable requirement thereof for personal use arrears of rent. and acquisition of suitable residence by the tenant after coming into operation of the Act. That suit came to be registered as H. R. P. Suit No. 3757 of 1971. The tenant filed his written statement at Exh. 9 on the record of the suit and resisted it on various grounds. The suit appears to have been assigned to Court No. 7 of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad for trial and disposal. The learned Trial Judge appears to have framed the necessary issues. After recording evidence and hearing the parties by his judgment and decree passed on 16/12/1976 in H. R. P. Suit No. 3767 of 1971 the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court (Court No. 7) at Ahmedabad was pleased to decree the landlords suit for possession solely on the ground that the tenant had acquired a suitable residence after coming into force of the Act. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the claim for possession on the other grounds. The aggrieved tenant carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. His appeal came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1977. After hearing the parties by its judgment and order passed on 30/08/1991 in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1977 the Appellate Court was pleased to accept the tenants appeal and to set aside the decree for possession passed by the Trial Court. The aggrieved landlord has thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 29 (2) of the Act for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid decision of the Appellate Court in appeal.

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that on behalf of the present petitioner not only the decree passed by the Trial Court was sought to be supported but the findings recorded by the Trial Court against the plaintiff on the claim for possession on other grounds were also sought to be assailed. The Appellate Court refused to entertain the challenge to the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the other issues against the present petitioner solely on the ground that no cross-objections were filed on behalf of the present petitioner in appeal. Shri Vyas for the petitioner has questioned the correctness of such an approach made by the lower Appellant Court before me.

( 4 ) SHRI Vyas for the petitioner appears to be right in his submission to the effect that Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (the Code for brief) would be applicable in the present case and it would be open to the successful litigant in appeal to question the correctness of the findings recorded against him while suppo