INDERJIT SINGH Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions (Civil Revisions Nos. 208 and 234 of 1963) have been heard together, but arguments have been addressed only in Civil Revision No. 234 of 1963, it being stated by the petitioner's counsel that if this revision fails, the other must also fail.

(2.) THE controversy arises out of an application for ejectment filed by the petitioner against the respondents on the ground of non -payment of rent. In both cases, the plea of the tenants was that they had paid municipal taxes to the Municipal Committee due by the landlord and, therefore, there was no default in payment of rent. This plea was upheld by both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority.

(3.) IN so far as the first point is concerned, it is sufficient to point out that it was not agitated before the appellate authority and, there -fore, cannot be allowed to be raised on revision, The contention that it had been raised before the Rent Controller and was also included in the memorandum of appeal stops short of the stage of arguments. Unless it was argued before the appellate authority, it would not be open to the petitioner to reagitate it as of right in this Court on revision. A point not mentioned in the judgment is ordinarily to be presumed not to have been argued. There being nothing in the order of the appellate authority, I would assume that it was not argued and, therefore, disallow it from being raised at this stage, The second point is also concluded by section 80(4), Punjab Municipal Act, which in clear terms lays down that if any tax or sum leviable under the said Act from the owner is recovered from the occupier, such occupier shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be entitled to recover the same from the owner and may deduct the same from the rent then or thereafter due by him to the owner. The word "leviable" underlined by me supplies the key to this provision and no question of tax being in arrears within the contemplation of section 81 would arise.