M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter has come up before this Bench for the limited purpose of answering the four questions as have been framed by the learned single Judge (Coram : Honble S. D. Shah, J. , as he then was) by his order dated 31-7-1997. The questions, which have been referred, are as under :- (1) Whether the order passed by His Lordship C. V. Jani, J. , (as His Lordship then was) in C. R. A. No. 871 of 1993 more particularly set out hereinabove was just, proper and maintainable in law in view of the specific averments contained in para 2 of the said Civil Revision Application which, inter alia, included the statement that the cross-objections which were filed in the lower appellate Court were rejected, and therefore, independent Civil revision Application was preferred in the High Court? (2) Whether rejection of the cross-objections on merits by the learned District judge, Surat, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1985 would bind the landlords and would necessarily confer the right of preferring Civil revision Application under the law or not? (3) Whether rejection of the cross-objections on merits by the learned District judge, Surat, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1985 would give right to the landlords to prefer independent Civil Revision Application insofar as the cross-objections were already rejected on merits in appeal by the lower appellate Court? (4) Whether in view of the order passed by C. V. Jani, J. , in Civil Revision application No. 871 of 1993, the landlords can be permitted to agitate the grounds in support of the decree of eviction which were already rejected by rejecting their cross-objections by the District Judge, Surat, in Regular civil Appeal No. 150 of 1985? ( 2 ) WE find it necessary to narrate facts in brief leading to this Reference as under :- the plaintiffs i. e. landlords instituted a Small Causes Suit (Rent Suit) No. 479 of 1979 before the Small Causes Court at Surat against the present petitioner, who was a tenant and defendant No. 1 in the suit. The eviction was sought in the said Suit on the following grounds :- (i) Arrears of rent for a period of more than six months. The eviction was sought in the said Suit on the following grounds :- (i) Arrears of rent for a period of more than six months. (ii) Change of user of the suit premises, incurring thereby the liability of eviction under Sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates Control Act, 1947. (iii) Causing damage to the suit property by making permanent alteration under Sec. 13 (1) (b) of the Act. (iv) For reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord under Sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Act. (v) On the ground of acquisition of suitable residential accommodation by the tenant under Sec. 13 (1) (1) of the Act. Small Causes Court at Surat decreed the Suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of possession by judgment and decree dated 29-9-1985 only on the ground of change of user of the suit premises under Sec. 13 (1) (a) read with Sec. 108 (o) of the transfer of Property Act. The present petitioner-tenant, who was defendant No. 1 in the trial Court, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1985 in the court of District Judge at Surat wherein the landlord-plaintiff also filed cross-objections, inter alia, contending that the decree for possession ought to have been passed on rest of the grounds also. The said Regular Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1985 was heard by the District Judge, Surat and he also heard the cross-objections which were filed by the landlord-plaintiff raising a grievance for not passing the decree of eviction on the rest of the grounds on which the decree was prayed for in the plaint. The District Judge at Surat vide its judgment and order dated 1-4-1992 confirmed the decree of eviction passed against the defendant under Sec. 13 (1) (a) read with Sec. 108 (o) of the Transfer of Property Act and rejected the cross-objections filed by the landlord as the trial Court had not passed the decree of eviction on rest of the grounds. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED from the rejection of the cross-objections, the landlord-plaintiff preferred Civil Revision Application No. 871 of 1993 before this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court (Coram : C. V. Jani, J. , as he then was) by his order dated 22-2-1994 rejected the said Civil Revision Application and passed the following order :-"oral order : The applicants who are the original landlords have approached this Court under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act, 1947. The revision application would not be maintainable in view of the fact that the applicants-landlords have already succeeded in getting the decree for eviction on the ground of change of user and arrears of rent, though the grounds of personal requirement, making permanent construction and obtaining alternative suitable accommodation are not proved according to the lower Court. The applicants who have succeeded in getting the decree for eviction are not required to challenge the decree which embodies the decision of the lower appellate court as per the provision of Sec. 29 (2) of the Rent Act. If any revision application is filed by the judgment-debtor tenant challenging the decree for eviction the applicant cannot only support the judgment and decision of the lower Court on the ground of change of user and arrears of rent, but they can as well assail the findings of the lower appellate Court on other grounds which are adverse to them. Hence rejected. Date : 22-2-1995 (C. V. Jani, J.)"it appears from the reading of this order that the Court was of the opinion that the Revision Application was not maintainable in view of the fact that there was already a decree of eviction passed in favour of the landlord on the ground of change of user and the arrears of rent, and therefore, even if the decree had not been passed on rest of the grounds, the plaintiff could not be really an aggrieved person as he already had a decree in his favour. Not only that, the Court while passing the order dated 22-2-1995 rejecting the Civil Revision Application, as had been filed by the landlord-plaintiff, also made it clear that if any Revision application is filed by Judgment debtor-tenant challenging the decree of eviction, the applicant (landlord) cannot only support the judgment and decision of the lower Court on the ground of change of user and arrears of rent, but they can as well assail the findings of the lower appellate Court on other grounds which are adverse to them. It appears that in the meantime the tenant had filed the present civil Revision Application No. 169 of 1994 challenging the decree of eviction, and the order passed by the appellate Court on the ground of change of user from residence to commercial i. e. , under Sec. 13 (1) (a) read with Sec. 108 (o) of the transfer of Property Act. In this Revision Application Rule was issued on 17-3-1994 and the interim relief was also granted with regard to the possession on usual terms. When this Revision Application came up for hearing before the Court (Coram : S. D. Shah, J. , as he then was), the learned Counsel for the landlord ms. K. A. Mehta sought to agitate the other grounds on which the decree of eviction was sought and it was also submitted on behalf of landlord-plaintiff that it was open for her to raise the points in view of the order dated 22-2-1995, as had been passed by the Honble Court (Coram : C. V. Jani, J. , as he then was) while rejecting the Revision Application No. 871 of 1993 and it was submitted by her that while rejecting the aforesaid Revision Application the liberty was specifically reserved to the landlord to support the decree on rest of the grounds as well, as the Revision Application then preferred was against the findings only and accordingly the same was not entertained because the landlord already had a decree of eviction in their favour. Learned single Judge (Coram : S. D. Shah, J. , as he then was) having noticed the order as had been passed earlier by Honble C. V. Jani, J. , in Civil Revision Application No. 871 of 1993, which has already been quoted in the earlier part of the order, however felt that the order dated 22-2-1995, as had been passed by the Honble C. V. Jani, J. , while rejecting the Civil Revision Application No. 871 of 1993, prima facie appeared to him to be quite queer and non-sustainable in law, and therefore, being conscious of the fact that being a Court of concurrent jurisdiction and sitting as a single Judge, it was difficult for him to make any observations against the said order dated 22-2-1995 and that no amount of disagreement with such order would permit him to go beyond the observations made in the judgment and being conscious of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33, but in a sense of helplessness as a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction (in his own words) he preferred to frame the questions, as have been reproduced in the earlier part of this order for determination by a Larger Bench and accordingly he passed the order dated 31-7-1997 referring the aforesaid four questions to be answered by a Larger bench. ( 4 ) IN view of this order dated 31-7-1997 passed by Honble S. D. Shah, j. , (as he then was) this matter has come before us, as ordered by the Honble chief Justice and we are required to answer the questions, as have been referred. ( 5 ) BEFORE we proceed to answer the first question, we prefer to answer question Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The rejection of cross-objections by the District Judge in a Regular Civil Appeal certainly binds the party, whose cross-objections are rejected and we are also of the opinion that such a party could always prefer a Revision Application against the rejection of the cross-objections and it is very clear that such a party has a right of filing a Civil Revision Application under law against such an order as an order deciding the suit within the meaning of sec. 15 of the C. P. C. , against which the Revision is competent. 15 of the C. P. C. , against which the Revision is competent. The rejection of the cross-objections of a party certainly binds it subject to any further order, which may be passed by the higher Court in a Revision Application against the rejection of such cross-objections, and therefore, the landlord could be bound by the rejection of cross-objections. We answer question Nos. 2 and 3 accordingly and in affirmative. ( 6 ) IN view of our answers to question Nos. 2 and 3, it follows as a natural consequence that in view of the order passed by the Honble C. V. Jani, J. (as he then was) in Civil Revision Application No. 871 of 1993 on 22-2-1995, it is open for the landlord to urge and agitate such grounds in support of the decree of eviction, which had already been rejected by the District Judge in appeal while rejecting the cross- objections. The order, which was passed on 22-2-1995 did not close or forestall the remedy of the landlord against the rejection of the grounds on which the decree was sought but was not granted. Whereas the decree was granted only on one of the grounds and such decree had been sustained on that very ground by the Appellate Court, even if the cross- objections were rejected when the High Court passed an order in Revision application preferred by such a party, it will be open for such a party (landlord) to urge these grounds if the tenant prefers Civil Revision Application and we have already held that the rejection of cross-objections would bind the landlord subject to the orders, which may be passed by the higher Court in Revision application preferred against such rejection, and therefore, it cannot be said that the landlord cannot be permitted to agitate the grounds in support of the decree of eviction. The law is settled that it is open for a party in whose favour an order is passed to support such an order before the next higher Court on any of the grounds, which had been urged by it before the lower Court, may be that the lower Court had not decided those grounds or had not agreed with those grounds and had rejected the same. The order, which is impugned in a revision or Appeal, can always be supported by the contesting party on any of the grounds, which were urged by it before the lower Court, even if the party did not succeed on this point and succeeded on some other point. The idea is that if the ultimate result of a case remains intact in favour of a party, the other grounds should be available to such a party, if the matter is taken before the higher Court by the other party. Therefore, we hold that it is open for the landlord in the present case to urge and agitate the grounds for which the cross-objection was rejected by the appellate Court and in the present Revision application, it is open for the landlord to urge all those grounds in respect of which the cross-objections had been rejected in Regular Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1985. Question No. 4 is answered accordingly and in affirmative. ( 7 ) IT may be made clear that any single Judge hearing a matter as a coordinate bench may disagree with any case law, which is cited before him as a precedent, and on that aspect it is open for him to disagree with the view taken by another co-ordinate Bench and refer the matter to a Larger Bench, but when the dispute is same between the same parties, the order is final and if another single Judge does not agree with the view taken by the other Judge, it cannot be a subject-matter of reference, even if he disagrees because that order is not being cited before him as a precedent but only for the limited purpose of showing that the remedy of that party, between the parties, who are at lis, has not been forestalled or closed. It is not necessary for us to dilate further on this aspect of the matter in view of the answers given by us to the question nos. 2, 3 and 4. We have already stated while answering question Nos. 2 and 3 that the order, as had been passed by Honble C. V. Jani, J. , could certainly be passed in the facts of the present case. ( 8 ) ALL the four questions, which have been referred to us, stands answered accordingly. 2, 3 and 4. We have already stated while answering question Nos. 2 and 3 that the order, as had been passed by Honble C. V. Jani, J. , could certainly be passed in the facts of the present case. ( 8 ) ALL the four questions, which have been referred to us, stands answered accordingly. Whereas the whole Revision was not referred to us and the reference is only limited to the four questions on the point of law, we direct that this civil Revision Application be placed before the concerned Bench for decision in accordance with law. .