JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Defendant is appellant. 2. A suit under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1982 was filed by plaintiff for defendants eviction from the suit premises, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint, on the grounds of expiry of fixed term of lease, default in payment of rent and personal necessity. 3. Plaintiffs case was that by registered lease-deed, dated 26.5.1981, suit premises was let-out to the defendant for a period of five years on monthly rental of Rs. 150/-. The said lease expired on 26.5.1986. Earlier to that defendant had stopped payment of monthly rent since 1.4.1986 onward. Besides recovery of possession, relief was also sought for a decree of arrears of rent and damages. 4. Defendant contested the suit and denied execution of any lease for five years and claimed himself to be a month-to-month tenant. He contended that he was not aware that any lease was got executed by him. 5. Defendants further case was that in May 1986, itself on plaintiffs request he had deposited rent upto July 1986 in her account in the State Bank of India. Thereafter bank refused to accept further deposit, on the instruction of plaintiffs husband. Hence, thereafter rent from August 1986, onwards were being remitted by postal money orders, which were refused by the plaintiff. Defendant also denied plaintiffs alleged requirement of the suit premises for her own use. 6. Relationship of landlord and tenant was not in dispute. However, plaintiff did not press her claim of personal necessity in the suit. 7. Defendant examined himself as DW 3 and admitted execution of the lease- deed, Exhibit 3. However, he stated that contents of the said deed were not read over to him and putting him in dark, his signature was taken thereon. 8. Trial Court, on perusal of Exhibit 3 found that contents thereof were read over to the parties, after it was typed out, and only thereafter the defendant "had put his signature thereon. 9. PW 3 stated that in his presence Ratan Kumar Dey, who had typed the deed, Exhibit 3, read over and explained the contents thereof to the parties. Further, in his letter. Exhibit 4, defendant had admitted to have taken the suit premises on rent for a fixed period of five years. 10. 9. PW 3 stated that in his presence Ratan Kumar Dey, who had typed the deed, Exhibit 3, read over and explained the contents thereof to the parties. Further, in his letter. Exhibit 4, defendant had admitted to have taken the suit premises on rent for a fixed period of five years. 10. Plaintiff sent lawyers notice, Exhibit 1 to the defendant to vacate the premises after expiry of lease. 11. So far as default in payment of rent since April 1986 onward was concerned, trial Court found that defendant was defaulter in the eye of law as he had not paid rent from April 1986, onwards. 12. The suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,200/-, detailed in Schedule C to the plaint. 13. Defendant preferred Eviction Appeal No. 31 of 1989, which was dismissed by impugned judgment and decree, dated 8.9.1994. Trial Courts finding on default-in payment of rent was affirmed aid eviction decree was upheld and maintained, subject to modification that tenancy was neither for a fixed term nor it came to an end with the expiry thereof and that the plaintiff instead of Rs. 1,200/- was entitled to a sum of Rs. 900/- only by way of arrears of rent. 14. Defendant has, therefore, filed the present Second Appeal and plaintiff has also filed cross-objection under Order XLI. Rule 22, of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Mr. N.K. Prasad, Senior Counsel for the appellant, submitted that on the direction of the plaintiff-defendant was not only depositing rent in her bank account, he had also paid municipal taxes subject to adjustment in rent and had deposited rent till July 1986 and as such he was, not a defaulter in the eye of law. 16. A pay-in-slip was brought on record to show that a sum of Rs. 430.08 paise was deposited in the State Bank of India some time in May 1986. In the said pay-in-slip neither the name nor account number of the person concerned nor name of branch of the State Bank of India nor the date of deposit was mentioned. Hence, the Courts below rightly disbelieved defendants assertion of depositing the aforesaid amount towards rent till July 1986 in the plaintiffs bank account. 17. In the said pay-in-slip neither the name nor account number of the person concerned nor name of branch of the State Bank of India nor the date of deposit was mentioned. Hence, the Courts below rightly disbelieved defendants assertion of depositing the aforesaid amount towards rent till July 1986 in the plaintiffs bank account. 17. It has further been contended that defendant was also entitled to adjustment of the amount paid by him towards Municipal Taxes on behalf of the plaintiff. A perusal of Municipal receipts. Exhibits B to B/5 shows that only one receipt, dated 30.5.1986, Exhibit B/4 was relevant, whereby for the third quarter of the year 1985-86, a sum of Rs. 80.46 paise was paid by defendant on behalf of plaintiff. The suit was filed on 20.10.1986 and as such other Municipal receipts were not relevant. So even if the said amount would have been adjusted, the defendant could not have saved himself from default in payment of rent in the eye of law. 18. Defendant failed to prove payment of rent from April 1986 to July 1986 and he was. therefore, rightly held to be defaulter in payment of rent for more than two months. 19. Plaintiff-respondent has filed cross-objection under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the finding recorded by Court of appeal below that plaintiff was not entitled to eviction decree under Section 11(1)(e) of the Act on the alleged expiry of fixed term lease (Exhibit 3). The impugned eviction decree is based on the finding that defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. Explanation to Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code provides as under :-- "Explanation.--A respondent aggrieved by a finding of the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may, under this rule, file cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding, notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the deceased, is, wholly or in part, in favour of the respondent." Hence, a cross-objection can be filed by respondent only against a finding on which a decree appealed against was based. The decree of the power appellate Court in the present Second appeal is based on the finding that defendant was a defaulter in the eye of law. In the cross-objection challenge has been made to the finding that plaintiff failed to prove fixed term tenancy on the basis of Exhibit 3. Hence, cross-objection is not maintainable. 20. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, wherein concurrent findings of fact were recorded by the two Courts below. 21. Accordingly, the appeal as well as cross-objection are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 22. Appeal dismissed.