JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. The appellant landlord brought an application to evict the respondent tenant from the premises on the ground of default in payment of rent for a long period commencing from 16-11-1965 in spite of the two decrees for recovery of rent having been passed earlier. The respondent tenants only plea in defence was a denial of the contract of tenancy or in other words, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The tenant did not, at any time, deny the non-payment of rent from 16-11-1965 nor did the tenant assert the deposit of rent before any authority as an alternative plea to the denial of appellants title.

3. The trial Court accepted the appellants landlords claim and passed an order of eviction which was affirmed in first appeal. The High Court in second appeal reversed that decision and set aside the order of eviction on the only ground that no specific issue was framed requiring proof of default in payment of rent which was a ground for eviction. This gives rise to the present appeal.

4. We are unable to sustain the order of the High Court. Admittedly, there was a clear averment in the plaint by the appellant of non-payment of any rent by th