Honble YADAV, J. – Instant Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.94 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 147/93 whereby he set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur dated 6.9.93 in Civil suit No. 938/87 and allowed the appeal filed by plaintiff-respondent. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for appellant Shri A.L. Chopra and perused the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. (3). Main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for appellant is that learned lower appellate court has committed substantial error of law and procedure in holding that from the averments made in the written statement and facts stated in Ex. 2 it is proved that the defendant-appellant is tenant of the plaintiff- respondent in respect of the disputed premises. (4). A close scrutiny of the averments made in Paragraphs 8 of the plaint clearly reveals that it is specifically stated by plaintiff-respondent that on 27.2.87 he gave notice to the defendant appellant, terminating his tenancy with effect from 31.3.87. Reply to this notice was sent by the tenant defendant- appellant through his counsel. (5). Tenant defendant-appellant has given evasive reply to the aforesaid averments made in Paragraph 8 of the plaint in his written statement. He has not denied the fact of giving reply of the notice through counsel wherein the relation- ship of land lord and tenant was admitted and only rate of rent was disputed. (6). I am of the view that the written statement filed by defendant-appellant, giving evasive reply shall be treated to be his admission within the meaning of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC which clearly provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied specifically in the written statement it shall be deemed to be admitted by necessary implication. As a matter of fact provisions of Order 8 Rule 5 is to be read with mandatory provisions envisaged under Order 6 Rules 1 ,2 and 6 CPC. As a matter of fact provisions of Order 8 Rule 5 is to be read with mandatory provisions envisaged under Order 6 Rules 1 ,2 and 6 CPC. Rule 1 of Order 6 clearly defines pleadings which mean plaint or written statement whereas Rule 2 of Order 6 provides that every pleading shall contain a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Rule 6 of the aforesaid order further provides that for any condition precedent, the performance or occurrence of which is intended to be contested, shall be distinctly specified in his pleading by the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be. (7). It is well to remember that in the present case it has come on the evidence that the tenant-defendant-appellant has deposited rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month under Sec. 19 (A) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950. Suffice it to say in this regard that the fact which is admitted need not be proved as contemplated under Sec. 58 of Indian Evidence Act. (8). I have critically examined the finding recorded by learned lower appellate court in Paragraph 9 on this point. The finding recorded by learned lower appellate court on this point is eminently just and proper and does not require interference in Second Appeal. (9). Mr. A.L. Chopra, learned counsel for appellants urged before me that the tenant-defendant-appellant is a poor man therefore he may be allowed one years time to remain in possession over the disputed premises. (10). Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into account the humanitarian consideration I allow the tenant-defendant-appellant to remain in possession over the disputed premises for a period of one year from today provided he deposits entire decreetal amount before the learned trial court within one month from today and also executes an undertaking to the effect before trial Court that after expiry of one year from today he would hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises to land lord-plaintiff-respondent. He is also directed to pay monthly rent month by month. He is also directed to pay monthly rent month by month. It is made clear that in failure of tenant- defendant-appellant to fulfil any of the conditions stipulated above or fails to execute an under taking before trial Court within one month from today then the decree-holder would be at liberty to execute the decree as envisaged under sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950. In view of what have been discussed above, the instant Second Appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed summarily.