1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1586/2011 WASUDEO KALBANDE ..VS.. LAXMAN TUKARAMJI ALONE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.S.Deshpande, advocate for petitioner Shri Charpe, advocate for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 31, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent is a landlord who had filed the proceeding before the trial court for possession of the suit property on the ground that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter, the respondent landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide need and the petitioner did not require the suit premises as he had secured alternate accommodation. It is necessary to note that the trial court, partly allowed the suit filed by the respondent and held that the respondent was entitled to grant of possession under section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The trial court however, dismissed the suit so far as it sought the possession of the property only on the ground of bonafide need. The petitioner and the respondent both were aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial court. The petitioner field an appeal before the first appellate court under the provisions 2 of section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. In the said appeal a cross objection was filed by the respondent seeking possession of the property on the ground of bonafide need and securing of alternate accommodation by the petitioner. The first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not a defaulter. The first appellate court, however, held that the respondent was entitled to grant of possession of the property on the ground of bonafide need. The judgment passed by the first appellate court on 11.1.2011, is challenged by the petitioner by this petition. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the cross-objection filed by the respondents was not tenable in an appeal arising from a decree passed by court of Small Causes in view of the provisions of section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is liable to be rejected, in view of the express provisions of section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 and the provisions of section 37 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The first appellate court did have jurisdiction to decide the cross-objection filed by the respondent. Though it is canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable in an appeal filed by the petitioner under section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, it is necessary to note that the petitioner had himself filed an application 3 under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, especially under Order 41 Rule 5 thereof for grant of stay. This clearly shows that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to a matter arising out of an order passed by the court of Small Causes, is ill-founded and is liable to be rejected. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP