Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Subletting as an Issue - The courts have consistently considered unauthorized subletting as a significant ground for eviction. In multiple cases, the appellate courts upheld the findings of the trial courts that subletting was proved either directly or through inference, even in the absence of explicit proof of monetary consideration. For example, the Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court on the issue of unlawful subletting and has held that the Plaintiffs proved presence of Defendant No.3 in the suit premises ["Louis Lobo VS Mohamed Yusuf Moosa - Bombay"] and the issue of subletting was answered in favour of the Applicants and against the Plaintiff by the Trial Court ["Narayan Damodar Thakur VS Madanlal Mohanlal Malpani - Bombay"].
Affirmative Consideration of Subletting - When the trial court considers subletting and holds it in the affirmative, the appellate courts generally uphold this finding, especially when supported by evidence or reasonable inference. The Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal filed by the Plaintiff and has set aside Small Causes Court's decree ["Santosh Anant Sabale heir and legal representative of Anant Krishna Shabele VS Mathuradas Morarji (since deceased) - Bombay"], and the appellate court answered the issue of subletting in favour of the defendant ["Babulal VS Rajendra Singh - Rajasthan"].
Decree for Possession and Appeal - The main point of contention is whether a decree for possession, even if not explicitly granted or when the decree is challenged, can be challenged on appeal when cross objections are not filed. The courts have clarified that cross objections are filed under the provisions of Order XLI, R.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the law does not require this to be proved by direct affirmative evidence rather, the court is empowered to draw reasonable inferences from the facts proved at trial ["Rakesh Zaverchand Shah VS Kamal Laxmichand Jhaveri - Bombay"], ["Bhimale and Sons VS Moti Dinshaw Irani - Bombay"].
Effect of Not Filing Cross Objections - When cross objections are not filed, the appellate court's ability to revisit certain findings may be limited, but the courts have also recognized that if the cross objections submitted by the applicants-original plaintiffs would have been considered by the learned appellate Court the learned appellate Court might have held the issue with respect to arrears of rent and/or subletting in favour of the applicants- original plaintiffs ["NITESHKUMAR MANSUKHLAL SHAH vs SHASHIKANT LALLUBHAI RANA - Gujarat"]. This indicates that the absence of cross objections does not bar the appellate court from considering and affirming findings on issues like subletting.
Main Point and Conclusion - The courts have affirmed that when the trial court considers subletting in the affirmative and the appellate court upholds this finding, a decree for possession may be maintained even if the decree itself is not explicitly challenged or if cross objections are not filed. The appellate courts have the authority to uphold findings on subletting based on inference and evidence, independent of cross objections, and such findings can be the basis for dismissing appeals or affirming eviction decrees ["Louis Lobo VS Mohamed Yusuf Moosa - Bombay"], ["Louis Lobo VS Mohamed Yusuf Moosa - Bombay"], ["Babulal VS Rajendra Singh - Rajasthan"].
References:- ["Louis Lobo VS Mohamed Yusuf Moosa - Bombay"]- ["Louis Lobo VS Mohamed Yusuf Moosa - Bombay"]- ["Babulal VS Rajendra Singh - Rajasthan"]- ["Rakesh Zaverchand Shah VS Kamal Laxmichand Jhaveri - Bombay"]- ["Bhimale and Sons VS Moti Dinshaw Irani - Bombay"]- ["NITESHKUMAR MANSUKHLAL SHAH vs SHASHIKANT LALLUBHAI RANA - Gujarat"]
In tenancy disputes, landlords often face a common dilemma: the trial court finds subletting proven (in the affirmative), but denies the possession decree due to other factors. What if the tenant appeals the overall decree? Can the landlord rely on that favorable subletting finding to push for eviction without filing cross-objections?
This question arises frequently: Trial court considered subletting in the issue which was held in affirmative but the decree for possession not given—can that be taken in the appeal when the cross-objections is not filed? The answer, grounded in procedural law under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is generally yes. Let's break it down step by step, drawing from key judicial precedents and statutory provisions.
Under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC (post-1976 amendment), a respondent (often the landlord in tenant appeals) can support the decree or argue that a favorable trial court finding—like subletting held in the affirmative—should lead to the desired relief, such as a possession decree, without filing cross-objections. This applies even if the trial court didn't grant possession despite the finding. Saurav Jain VS A. B. P. Design - 2021 5 Supreme 389
The rule allows: Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any cross-objection to the decree... Saurav Jain VS A. B. P. Design - 2021 5 Supreme 389 This distinction is crucial—mere reliance on a favorable finding to sustain or enhance relief based on the decree doesn't require cross-objections.
In Banarsi v. Ram Phal, the Supreme Court clarified: though it is still not necessary for the respondent to take any cross-objection... the amendment... gives him a right to take cross-objection to a finding recorded against him... For supporting the decree passed by the trial court, it is not necessary... to file a memorandum of cross-objections. Saurav Jain VS A. B. P. Design - 2021 5 Supreme 389
In eviction suits under rent control laws, subletting is a prime ground for possession. If the trial court holds subletting affirmatively but denies decree (e.g., due to discretion or other grounds), the landlord can argue in appeal for possession based on that finding. S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore reinforces: The respondent in an appeal is entitled to support the decree of the trial court even by challenging any of the findings... against himself... A memorandum of cross-objections is needed only if the respondent claims any relief which had been negatived. Khaja Moinuddin Ameer VS Zulekha Begum - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1562
This procedural flexibility shines in tenancy contexts. For instance, in cases where trial courts noted subletting evidence but appellate courts confirmed or reversed without cross-objection mandates. Labanya Neogi Through Lrs. Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Subhasis Neogi VS W. B. Engineering Company - 1999 7 Supreme 519
Other precedents echo this. In a Bombay High Court ruling, amendments to the Bombay Rent Act legalized certain sub-tenancies retrospectively, but the core issue of relying on subletting findings in appeals persisted, with trial courts rejecting possession on arrears while upholding subletting probes. Lakhichand Punamchand Marwadi Deceased By His Heirs - Sou. Pramilabai Punamchandji Ladha Etc. and Another v. Thakursheth Lalasaheb Tokeram - 1991 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 9 Similarly, unauthorized subletting was deemed a continuing breach, allowing fresh causes of action for eviction, tying into appellate reliance on trial findings. Shree Durga Trading Co. VS Ateeq Anwar Agboatwala - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 635
Even stronger, appellate courts can mold relief independently: Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree... as the case may require... notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree. HUSEENIBHAI ABDULKARIM VS ABDUL HUSSEIN NAZARALI - 1992 0 Supreme(Guj) 170 This ensures a proven subletting finding isn't wasted, potentially granting possession sans cross-objections.
In partition suits analogously, appellate courts couldn't grant larger relief without cross-appeals if not tied to existing findings—distinguishing mere finding reliance (allowed) from new relief claims (requiring objections). Rajkumar Chaganlal Shah VS Gunmala Chandrakant Shah - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1083Rajkumar Chaganlal Shah VS Gunmala Chandrakant Shah
While flexible, boundaries exist:- Varying the Decree: If seeking to enhance or alter the decree beyond trial findings (e.g., new relief), cross-objections may be needed as respondent. Pure reliance on subletting doesn't trigger this. Saurav Jain VS A. B. P. Design - 2021 5 Supreme 389- No Standalone Appeal on Findings: Appeals target decrees, not mere findings—but linking subletting to non-grant of possession makes it viable. HUSEENIBHAI ABDULKARIM VS ABDUL HUSSEIN NAZARALI - 1992 0 Supreme(Guj) 170- Risk Without Cross-Objections: If the main appeal fails or withdraws, arguments may not survive independently. Khaja Moinuddin Ameer VS Zulekha Begum - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1562- Substantive Proof Required: Procedural rights assume strong evidence of subletting (exclusive possession + consideration). Failure to cross-examine witnesses on subletting can deem it admitted. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9430Ram Murti Devi VS Pushpa Devi - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1317
In one case, concurrent findings on subletting were upheld in second appeals, with the High Court interfering only if evidence wholly unsupported—burden on tenant to disprove. Gopal Ram Gupta VS Jitendra Nath Dutta (since deceased), Atanu Dutta
To maximize chances:1. Explicitly Argue in Appeal Memo: Cite Order XLI Rule 22, highlight the affirmative subletting finding, and pray for possession under Rule 33.2. Consider Optional Cross-Objections: For safety, especially as respondent, to prosecute independently.3. Bolster Evidence: Ensure pleadings cover subletting elements; note continuing breaches for limitation defenses. Shree Durga Trading Co. VS Ateeq Anwar Agboatwala - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 6354. Watch Demand Notices: Invalid notices can derail possession, even with subletting. Shankar Vishnu Sonar (Lohokare) VS Kusum Gajanan Pawar through her Mukhtyar- Chandrakant Khanderao Pawar - 2009 Supreme(Bom) 478
Generally, a trial court's affirmative subletting finding can be leveraged in appeal without cross-objections, promoting justice without rigid formalities. This balances tenant appeals while protecting landlord rights under CPC. However, outcomes depend on facts—consult a legal expert for your case.
This post provides general insights based on precedents and is not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction; seek professional counsel.
References (select excerpts):1. Saurav Jain VS A. B. P. Design - 2021 5 Supreme 389: Banarsi v. Ram Phal on Rule 22.2. Khaja Moinuddin Ameer VS Zulekha Begum - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1562: Nazeer Ahmed on supporting decrees.3. HUSEENIBHAI ABDULKARIM VS ABDUL HUSSEIN NAZARALI - 1992 0 Supreme(Guj) 170: Challenging findings sans cross-objections.
#SublettingLaw, #CPCAppeal, #EvictionRights
However, the decree for eviction is still maintained by the Appellate Court by allowing the cross appeal filed by Plaintiffs by accepting the grounds of unauthorized subletting. The finding of the Trial Court on the issue of bonafide requirement is however, maintained. ... However, it appears that the Trial Court did not frame a specific issue about the real ten....
However, the decree for eviction is still maintained by the Appellate Court by allowing the cross appeal filed by Plaintiffs by accepting the grounds of unauthorized subletting. The finding of the Trial Court on the issue of bonafide requirement is however, maintained. ... However, it appears that the Trial Court did not frame a specific issue about the real ten....
The Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal filed by the Plaintiff and has set aside Small Causes Court's decree dated 25 November 2015. ... Defendant No.1 filed Appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court for setting aside the ex-parte decree which was dismissed. Defendant No.1 filed Writ Petition No.78 of 2011 in this Court, which was allowed, and the ex-parte decree was set aside....
It appears that the cross Appeals were filed against the decree of the Trial Court both by the landlord as well as the tenants and by common judgment and order dated 5 May 2022, the Appeal filed by the Tenant (Applicant) has been dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the landlord is allowed to the extent ... The decree of the Trial Court has been confirmed by the Appellate Bench....
Parties went to the trial. The trial Court post considering the evidence on record, evicted the present petitioner/tenant on the ground of subletting on 21.04.2018. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.06.2018. ... Cross-examination of PW-1 was of no avail. The failure of the petitioner-tenant to cross-examine PW-2 on the specific allegation of sub-letting means that the statement of the witness has #HL_START....
He has submitted that the Trial Court erroneously did not frame any issue of limitation. 10. ... Thorat answers the query in the affirmative and submits that an undertaking to that effect shall be filed in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. ... The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has held that partners of Defendant No. 1 did not have any control on business....
The trial Court rejected the claim of the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff", for possession on the ground of arrears of rent. This was done not merely on merits but also by noting that the case for default was not pressed in the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiff. ... It is this decree confirming the decree of the trial Court which is the subject - matter of challenge in t....
These are cross proceedings filed by rival parties challenging the judgment and decree dated 30 November 2023 passed by the District Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No. 560/2014. ... Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed Civil Appeal No. 560/2014 before the District Court, Pune challenging the decree dated 9 September 2014. ... The Court held that after late Ghulam Husain, the suit premises were let out to Defendant Nos....
6) Applicants-Defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 189 of 2019 before the District Court, Panvel challenging Trial Court’s decree dated 9 July 2013. Appellate Court answered the issue of bonafide requirement against Plaintiff and in favour of Applicants-Defendants. ... Patil would submit that the issue of subletting was answered in favour of the Applicants and against the Plaintiff by the Trial Cour....
The learned trial Court held the issue with respect to arrears of rent and subletting in the negative and passed the decree of possession solely on the ground of non-user of the suit premises. ... given by the learned trial Court on arrears of rent and subletting only. ... 1 and 2 with respect to the finding given by the learned trial Court on ....
The provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 and Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C. empowers the court to consider the said aspect. Therefore, when the defendants have not filed cross appeal whether they can be denied hearing them in respect of issue No.2 is to be considered. In this regard it is useful to refer power of 1st appellate court. Therefore, the Judgment and decree passed in this case has not given any relief to the plaintiffs in respect of those properties but the possession and ownership of the defendants in respect of the above said properties is conferred on the defendants tho....
The judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Biswajit Sukul (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 would clearly apply to the facts of this case. In my view, the first Appellate Court thus could not have granted larger relief in favour of the plaintiff and defendant nos. This is not the case of the finding rendered against the plaintiff while passing a decree for which no cross objection was filed which could be attacked at the hearing of appeal by the other side but is the case of the reliefs which were not granted by the trial court but having been allo....
In my view, the first Appellate Court thus could not have granted larger relief in favour of the plaintiff and defendant nos. This is not the case of the finding rendered against the plaintiff while passing a decree for which no cross objection was filed which could be attacked at the hearing of appeal by the other side but is the case of the reliefs which were not granted by the trial court but having been allowed by the first Appellate Court without filing cross appeal or cross objection. The judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Biswajit Sukul (supra) relied upon by t....
The original plaintiff also filed a cross-objection against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge deciding the issue of subletting and/or transferring of the suit property by the defendant in the negative. The learned lower appellate Court however, also dismissed the cross-objection, filed by the original plaintiff appellant. After considering the facts as stated in the said application of the defendant -tenant under Section 151 of the Code and the records of the case, the first appellate Court, that is, the learned Additional District Judge agreed with the fin....
In the present case, the third situation contemplated by the Apex Court is clearly attracted. Respondent No. 1 did not chose to challenge the decision on the said cross objection by way of substantive writ petition or for that matter by filing formal cross objection after the receipt of notice of admission of the present writ petition. In that, respondent no.1, after the adverse opinion of the trial Court in respect of unlawful subletting, consciously filed cross objection when the decree for possession was assailed by defendant no.3 before the Appellate Court. The said cro....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
