R. M. DOSHIT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, defendant No. 5 in H. R. P. Suit No. 332/1976 has preferred the present Revision Application under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act") against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 1984 passed by the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 197/1979. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs, the partners in a partnership firm M/s. D. Shantilal and Co. , instituted H. R. P. Suit No. 332/1976 in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad for recovery of possession of the suit premises and for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners of the suit property situated at Ahmedabad bearing Survey No. 44-AB-1-24; that part of the suit property (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises") was leased to M/s. Signwave Industries in which the defendants No. 1 and 2 were the partners. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 being the partners in the said firm were impleaded by order made below application Exh. 43. The defendant No. 1 had filed Misc. Application No. 1713/1973 for determination of standard rent. By order made on the said application the standard rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 280=00 exclusive of municipal taxes and education cess. The suit premises was leased for commercial purpose. According to the terms of the lease the said defendants were not entitled to use the suit premises for any other purpose or to sublet, transfer or assign the suit premises or any part thereof to any other person: that the said defendants were in arrears of rent since 1st November, 1974; that the said defendants had made permanent construction in the suit premises without the prior approval of the plaintiffs; that the said defendants had sublet or transfer or assign the suit premises to the defendants Nos. 5 and 6. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statements Exhs. 58 and 68. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge was, by judgment and order dated 4th May, 1979, pleased to hold that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were the tenants in arrears of rent; that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had, without the consent of the plaintiffs, raised permanent structure in the suit premises. 58 and 68. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge was, by judgment and order dated 4th May, 1979, pleased to hold that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were the tenants in arrears of rent; that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had, without the consent of the plaintiffs, raised permanent structure in the suit premises. As to the subletting, the finding was recorded against the plaintiffs. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned Judge was pleased to pass decree for eviction and for arrears of rent and for mesne profits. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the defendant No. 5 preferred Civil Appeal No. 197/1979 before the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. The lower appellate Court, by impugned judgment and order dated 30th March, 1984, dismissed the appeal. The lower appellate Court held that the trial Court had erred in recording finding with respect to unlawful subletting against the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court held that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were not in possession of the suit premises and that the defendant No. 5 alone was in possession of the suit premises; that the defendant No. 5 had failed to prove his defence that he was accepted as a partner in the partnership firm by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The defendant No. 5 was, therefore, an unlawful sub-tenant in the suit premises. In view of the said finding, the lower appellate Court confirmed the decree for possession passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the present Revision Application. ( 5 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that as to the subletting the trial Court had recorded a finding against the plaintiffs. In appeal before the appellate Court, the plaintiffs did not prefer cross-objection with respect to the said finding recorded against them. In absence of the cross-objection preferred by the plaintiffs the lower appellate Court could not have upset the finding recorded by the trial Court with respect to the subletting and recorded finding in favour of the plaintiffs. He has also submitted that the plaintiffs did not prove passing of consideration. At the worst the defendant No. 5 can be said to be the trespasser in the suit premises. The rent court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against the defendant No. 5. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Bhatt has contested the Revision Application. At the worst the defendant No. 5 can be said to be the trespasser in the suit premises. The rent court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against the defendant No. 5. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Bhatt has contested the Revision Application. He has relied upon Order 41 Rule 22 CPC and has submitted that even in absence of the cross-objection the plaintiffs had right to challenge the finding recorded by the trial Court against the plaintiffs. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgments in the matters of Tej Kumar Jain v/s. Purshottam and another [air 1981 MADHYA PRADESH 55]; of Naresh Ahir and others v/s. Mst. Barhiya and another [air 1985 PATNA 287]; and of Ballani Ranganayakulu and others v/s. Mattupalli Nageswara Rao [air 1992 ANDHRA PRADESH 294]. ( 7 ) MR. SHAH has submitted a statement of amounts of rent tendered in the Court pending the proceeding. He states that the said amounts have been deposited by the petitioner-defendant No. 5 and have been withdrawn by the plaintiffs. ( 8 ) BE it noted that the decree for possession was passed by the trial Court on the ground that the tenants were in arrears of rent. The said finding has not been upset or reversed by the lower appellate Court. The rent tendered by the petitioner, sub-tenant cannot be said to be the rent tendered by the tenants. The tenants would, therefore, still be liable for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. As to the subletting, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has held that the petitioner-defendant No. 5 was unlawfully inducted in the suit premises to the exclusion of the tenants-defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for consideration. Order 41 Rule 22 CPC empowers a respondent in appeal to state that the finding against him by the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour. Considering the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 22 CPC and the explanation thereunder the above referred judgments have taken a view that the respondent, even though he does not prefer cross-objection, can still assail the finding before the appellate Court while supporting the decree. Considering the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 22 CPC and the explanation thereunder the above referred judgments have taken a view that the respondent, even though he does not prefer cross-objection, can still assail the finding before the appellate Court while supporting the decree. In view of the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 22 CPC and the aforesaid judgments, the contention raised by Mr. Shah requires to be rejected. As the petitioner has been held to be a sub-tenant, the contention that the rent court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against the petitioner is not sustainable. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the Revision Application is dismissed with cost. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. ( 10 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Shah requests that the interim protection granted to the petitioner be continued for a period of three months. The request is granted. The decree for eviction passed against the petitioner may not be executed for a period of three months on usual terms and on condition that the petitioner shall, commencing from 1st March, 2005, pay occupancy fee of Rs. 1,000=00 every month regularly. Such occupancy fee shall be paid before the 5th day of the next succeeding month till the petitioner hands-over the vacant possession of the suit premises. .