The lack of statutory provision enabling any party to file a memorandum of Cross Objections or Cross Appeal in an appeal filed by the opposite party did not preclude the tenant from challenging the finding regarding bona fide need.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord sought eviction of the revision petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation coming under S.11 (2)(b) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The main contention of the tenant was that the applicant is not entitled to receive rent for the building and therefore the petition is not maintainable. Such a contention was raised under the following circumstances:

By the judgment in OS. No. 143/71 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, two persons who were the original tenants of the landlord were allowed to receive the rent of the petition schedule building. There the original tenants had prayed for recovery of possession of the petition schedule building and also the movables from the revision petitioner. In that suit the present respondent who is the landlord was impleaded as additional 2nd defendant. The revision petitioner herein raised the contention that the plaintiffs therein had no leasehold interest or other right or possession of the building and therefore the plaintiffs therein are not entitled to any relief. However, the Munsiff's Court by Ext. BI judgment decreed the suit and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule building from the defendant with arrears of rent. It was under these circumstances that the revision petitioner contended that the respondent herein is not entitled to file this petition for eviction.

2. In view of Ext. BI judgment the Rent Control Court held that even though the landlord is entitled to evict the revision petitioner under S.11(3) of the Act, since the petition is not maintainable the petition was dismissed.

3. Ext. BI judgment was taken up in appeal and when the appeal from the Rent Control Court's order was pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority the landlord produced the appellate judgment reversing Ex. BI judgment. It was conceded by counsel appearing on both sides that Ext. BI judgment was set aside and that the respondent herein is the landlord and the revision petitioner is a direct tenant under her. Therefore the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court Regarding bona fide need, the Appellate Authority observed that since there is no cross-objections against that finding the finding regarding bona fide need has become final Accordingly the appeal was allowed and eviction was ordered under S.11(3) of the Act. In the revision under S.20 of the Act the District Court confirmed the finding regarding landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent and the revision petitioner. Thereafter the District Court considered the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. It was observed that since no cross-objection was filed the finding of the Rent Control Court has become final. After making this observation the District Court considered the question on merits and held that the finding regarding bona fide need is correct and accordingly dismissed the revision petition.

4. Challenging this order the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there is no provision to file Cross Appeal or Memorandum of Cross objections in the Act; and therefore the finding of the Appellate Authority that since no Cross Appeal is filed the Appellate Authority cannot consider the ground of bona fide need, is illegal and is liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that the consideration of this ground by the District Court is not proper since the District Court was also of the view that without a Memorandum of Cross Objections the tenant is not entitled to agitate this question and that, that observation has vitiated the finding of the District Court regarding bona fide need Under S 23 of the Act, Order XLI R.22 CPC. is not made applicable to proceedings under the Act Under R.15 and 16 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rule