JUDGMENT Mohan, J. I. Leave granted. 2. The special leave petition is directed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Second Appeal No. 193 of 198 I. The petitioner filed a title suit No. 97 of 1965 in the court of learned Munsiff, Dibrugarh. The suit is for ejectment of the respondent herein. on the following averments. 3. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from the original owner Mis Planters Stores Agency Ltd. on October 28, 1948. The father of the defendant was originally the tenant of Mis Planters Stores Agency paying an annual rent of Rs. 50 by putting up temporary structures on the suit land for residential purpose. After the purchase by the plaintiff, he continued as tenant accepting the plaintiff as a landlord. He defaulted in payment of the rent for a period from January I, 1962 to February 28,1965. He also sublet a part of the structure standing thereon to pro forma defendants 2-5. Besides, the plaintiff bona fide required the suit land for their use and occupation. A notice of ejectment was issued on January 8, 1965 calling upon the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession. He did not do so. Hence the suit. 4. The original defendant Ramprit Kumar filed a written statement contesting the suit. However, he died, pending the suit. Therefore, the respondent Atmaram Kumar came to be substituted. He filed a written statement that the suit was not maintainable and the first defendant was a tenant under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. 5. The plaintiff had no right to sue as the father (original defendant) came to occupy the suit premises in the year 1922 as yearly tenant. In any event, there was no service of notice of ejectment and the structure standing thereon was of a permanent character. 6. One of the main issues for decision was whether there was a valid notice terminating the tenancy and the defendant had been properly served. 7. The learned Munsiff on trial decreed the suit. The defendant preferred title appeal No. 17 of 1970 before the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, he preferred second appeal No. 193 of I 98 I on the file of the Gauhati High Court. The learned Judge went into detail on the question of notice. 7. The learned Munsiff on trial decreed the suit. The defendant preferred title appeal No. 17 of 1970 before the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, he preferred second appeal No. 193 of I 98 I on the file of the Gauhati High Court. The learned Judge went into detail on the question of notice. He came to the conclusion merely because the original defendant did not deny specifically the service of notice in paragraph 5 of the written statement it cannot be deemed to be an admission Under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, according to him the courts below committed an error of law in not deciding this issue, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record. The evidence according to him, disclosed that the notice had not been served. On this sole ground, the second appeal can be allowed. Hence, the present special leave petition. 8. This Court on October 4, 1991 ordered thus: "Issue notice. The question is a short one and that is whether in the second appeal stage the question of the service of the notice should have been permitted to be raised at all. The notice shall specifY that the matter will be finally disposed of on the SLP stage itself on the SLP papers at the next date of hearing." 9. Therefore the only question which we are called upon to decide is as to the validity of the notice. 10. The learned Munsiff cast many issues. Issue No.5 reads as follows: "Whether the notice terminating the tenancy is a valid one and whether there is proper service." I I. The learned Munsiffrendered the following finding: "PW 3 Harinarayan Mitra was the mohurer of Shri C.C. Chakrabarty who issued the ejectment notice on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex. 2 is the postal receipt and Ex. I is the acknowledgement. From Ex. ] it appears that the ejectment notice was sent to the address Village Naruah, P.O. Mirzapur, Distt. Chapra (Bihar). It appears from D.W. Ramsundars evidence that Ramprit went home (Bihar) for his treatment. It is probably due to this reason the notice was sent to Ramprits home address. Copy of the ejectment notice was also sent to the pro forma defendants. Chapra (Bihar). It appears from D.W. Ramsundars evidence that Ramprit went home (Bihar) for his treatment. It is probably due to this reason the notice was sent to Ramprits home address. Copy of the ejectment notice was also sent to the pro forma defendants. Late Ramprit Kumar in his written statement did not deny the receipt of the ejectment notice, late Ramprit Kumar only stated in the W.S. that the notice of ejectment as referred to in para 7 of the plaint is not according to law. Therefore the defendant I now cannot take the stand that no ejectment notice was served upon the defendant pursuing the ejectment notice I (sic) filed that the notice fulfils the requirements as laid down in Section 106 of the T.R Act and Section II of the Act 12 of 1955 (Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955) under the above circumstances the notice terminating (sic the tenancy) is a valid one and there was proper service. This issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff." 12. While affirming the same the first appellate court stated thus: "Original defendant I Ramprit in para 5 of his written statement took the plea that ejectment notice was not in accordance with law. He did not state that notice was not served. PW 3, Harinarayan Mitra, a petition writer of the court, deposed that he was attached to Shri C.c. Chakrabarty, advocate ofDibrugarh. He further deposed that he posted the ejectment notice Ex. 2 by registered post. Ex. 2(1) was the signature of his lawyer Shri C.C. Chakrabarty. Ex. 3 was the postal receipt while Ex. 4 was the acknowledgement receipt. Service of ejectment notice was proved duly. I have gone through the contents of Ex. 2 and found that it complied with the requirement of law. Notice was found to be valid and proper and this issue is decided in lilVour of the plaintiff and against the defendant." 13. Order 8 Rule 5(1) reads as follows: "Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, slfall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion reqUIre any fact so admitted to be provided otherwise than by such admission." 14. What is stated in the above is, what amounts to admitting a fact on a pleading while Rule 3 of Order 8 requires that the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation offact of which he does not admit the truth. 15. Rule 5 provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant. What this rule says is, that any allegation of fact must either be denied specifically or by a necessary implication or there should be at least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, then the allegation shall be taken to be admitted. 16. From the above findings, it is clear that the plaint categorically stated in paragraph 7 as under: "That the said late Ramprit Kumar -- the father of the defendant I having defaulted to pay rent of the said land having become defaulter under the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act and having sublet the land and the plaintiff having required the said land for their own use and occupation after construction of buildings thereon, the plaintiff through their lawyer Shri C.C. Chakrabarty, B.L. Pleader, Dibrugarh, served the said late Ramprit Kumar the father of defendant I with a notice of ejectment dated January 8, 1965 through Regd. AID post requiring the said late Ramprit Kumar the father of defendant I to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the said land on the expiry of the 28th day of February, 1966 after removal of the temporary structures therefrom. The said notice of ejectment was duly delivered and served upon the said late Ramprit Kumar the father of defendant I and copy of the said notices were also sent to the pro forma defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5. The true copy of the said notices and the postal receipt and the AID receipt are filed herewith and marked as plaintiffs documents Nos. 1,2 and 3." 17. The answer to this is in paragraph 5 of the written statement to the following effect: "That the notice of ejectment as referred to in para 7 of the plaint is not according to law." 18. Certainly it is a case to which Order 8 Rule 5 was attracted. 1,2 and 3." 17. The answer to this is in paragraph 5 of the written statement to the following effect: "That the notice of ejectment as referred to in para 7 of the plaint is not according to law." 18. Certainly it is a case to which Order 8 Rule 5 was attracted. It is unnecessary to examine the question as to where ajudicial admission could be pem1itted to be withdrawn or retracted. 19. Non-traverse would constitute an implied admission. In the facts of this case the findings of the trial court and that of the first appellate court could be upheld on this admission. Thus, we find the High Court was wrong in interfering with this finding. Accordingly, the appeal will stand allowed. No costs.