JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14-8-87 passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge (Judge Small Cause Court), Kanpur Nagar, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for possession, ejectment of the defendant, recovery of water and sewer taxes and recovery of pendente lite and future damages. 2. The brief facts for the purpose of deciding the present revision are that the plaintiff who admittedly is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and taxes against the defendant. A specific plea was taken that despite service of notice of demand the defendant had failed to pay the arrears of rent within the statutory period and, thus, he was liable to ejectment under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The defendant contested the aforesaid suit on the ground that he was not liable to ejectment and that the rate at which the electricity dues had to be paid was not as alleged by the plaintiff. 4. As far as the finding on the question of default is concerned, the learned Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to show as to how the finding is not in accordance with law. On appraisal of evidence the Court below has found that the defendant did not pay rent since September 1983. If that be so, the decree for rejectment passed on the ground that the defendant has committed default in payment of more than four months' rent despite service of notice of demand cannot be said to be not in accordance with law. It has been urged that the Court below after recording a finding that the defendant was only liable to pay Rs. 120/- per month as rent the entire claim for rent as claimed by the plaintiff could not have been decreed. Similar argument has been raised in connection with the decree for payment of water and sewer tax. It has been urged that an argument was raised that the defendant was not liable to pay Rs. 125/- in respect of this item. In the end, it has also been argued that the defendant was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. 5. It has been urged that an argument was raised that the defendant was not liable to pay Rs. 125/- in respect of this item. In the end, it has also been argued that the defendant was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. 5. From a perusal of the impugned judgment it is clear that there is no discussion on these points. Normal presumption would be that the defendant had not raised these points before the Court below, However, in case the defendant has in fact raised all these points before the Court below, the proper remedy in my opinion is that the defendant should move an application before the Court below and in case these arguments were in fact raised before the Court below, the same shall be adjudicated by the Court below after affording an opportunity to the parties. 6. For the reasons stated above this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist is not entitled to any relief in this revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made above. 7. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned Counsel for the revisionist within a week on payment of usual charges.