ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure-7) passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, whereby, it was held that the cross-objections filed by the respondents under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC were maintainable. 2. A petition for eviction was filed by the respondent - landlord on the grounds of bona fide necessity and non-user. 3. The Rent Tribunal by its judgment dated 23.07.2007 (Annexure-3) while upholding the bona fide requirement of the landlord, negatived the plea regarding non-user. 4. An appeal was filed by the petitioner - tenant before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, wherein, the respondents filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC questioning the validity of finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal pertaining to the ground of non-user. 5. The petitioners raised objections regarding the maintainability of cross-objections. 6. The Appellate Rent Tribunal by its impugned order dated 23.01.2017 held the same to be maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the Appellate Rent Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the cross-objections were maintainable in view of the fact that Code of Civil Procedure as such is not applicable and, other than the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 CPC, there is no provision for filing cross-objections and, therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the issue regarding maintainability of cross-objections in such proceedings is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. v. International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd. : (2004) 3 SCC 250 has laid down that by taking cross-objections what is being exercised is the right of appeal itself and the earlier view of the Court in the case of Superintending Engineer & Ors. v. B. Subba Reddy : (1999) 4 SCC 423 has been overruled. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) inter alia observed as under:- "15. Right to prefer cross-objection partakes of the right to prefer an appeal. When the impugned decree or order is partly in favour of one party and partly in favour of the other, one party may rest contended by his partial success with a view to giving a quietus to the litigation. Right to prefer cross-objection partakes of the right to prefer an appeal. When the impugned decree or order is partly in favour of one party and partly in favour of the other, one party may rest contended by his partial success with a view to giving a quietus to the litigation. However, he may like to exercise his right of appeal if he finds that the other party was not interested in burying the hatchet and proposed to keep the lis alive by pursuing the same before the appellate forum. He too may in such circumstances exercise his right to file appeal by taking cross-objection. Thus, taking any cross-objection to the decree or order impugned is the exercise of right of appeal though such right is exercised in the form of taking cross-objection. The substantive right is the right of appeal; the form of cross-objection is a matter of procedure. 18. We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that right to take a cross-objection is the exercise of substantive right of appeal conferred by a statute. Available grounds of challenge against the judgment, decree or order impugned remain the same whether it is an appeal or a cross-objection. The difference lies in the form and manner of exercising the right; the terminus a quo (the starting point) of limitation also differs. 20. Once we hold that by taking cross-objection what is being exercised is the right of appeal itself, it follows that the subject-matter of cross-objection and the relief sought therein must conform to the requirement of Section 39(1). In other words, a cross-objection can be preferred if the applicant could have sought for the same relief by filing an appeal in conformity with the provisions of Section 39(1) of the Act. If the subject matter of the cross-objection is to impugn such an order which does not fall within the purview of any of the categories contemplated by clauses (I) to (vi) of sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act, the cross-objection shall not be maintainable." 10. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), the Appellate Rent Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the cross-objections were maintainable. The writ petition filed by the petitioners has no substance. 11. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), the Appellate Rent Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the cross-objections were maintainable. The writ petition filed by the petitioners has no substance. 11. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.