( 1 ) DELAY condoned. ( 2 ) LEAVE granted. ( 3 ) IN the present case, the appellant had filed an application for eviction of the respondent tenant, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. The trial court had struck off the defence because of failure to pay the rent within time. That was confirmed by the lower appellate court. The High court, on the other hand, reversed the said findings by observing that in the plaint there was no plea to show that the appellant landlord was entitled to a decree for possession under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rent Control Act as it had not been pleaded that the tenant had neither paid the amount of rent nor tendered the said amount due from him for six months. A copy of the plaint has been placed on record and we find on reading the plaint as a whole that necessary plea has been raised specifically in paragraph 5 of the plaint. ( 4 ) SHRI S. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that there was a delay of merely eight days in depositing rent and that delay which had occurred nearly ten years before the application for striking off the defence was filed, should have been condoned. This aspect has not been gone into by the High Court as the High Court has based its decision only on the ground that the requisite plea regarding default for a period of six months has not been raised in the plaint. This finding of the High Court is not borne out from the record. We think it appropriate to set aside the judgment of the High court and require Civil Revision Petition No. 967 of 1995 to be reheard on merits. ( 5 ) ORDERED accordingly. ( 6 ) THE appeals are disposed of, accordingly.