1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4649/2009 (ISHAQUEBAI MOHAMMADALI VS. JAMIL AHMAD MOHD. KHALIL) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri J.B.Kasat, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri D.M.Upadhye, Advocate, for respondent . CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 08, 2010. Heard Advocate Kasat for petitioner-tenant and Advocate Upadhye, for respondent-landlord. Admittedly tenancy is for non-residential (shop) purposes and not governed by Rent Control Legislation. After serving notice at Exh. 17 dated 5.10.2004 and terminating tenancy w.e.f. 31.10.2004, the suit for eviction came to be filed. Both the courts have concurrently decreed the suit. Advocate Kasat contends that the notice of termination has not been established and in any case the defence of waiver taken by petitioner/tenant because of subsequent acceptance of monthly rent by respondent- landlord has been substantiated. He has taken the Court through relevant evidence of respondent-landlord for the said purpose. Advocate Upadhye contends that landlord is old aged person and therefore, though documents were on record, he has given incorrect answers in cross examination. He contends that as the pleadings are substantiated by the documents, the courts have correctly 2 applied their mind and ignored those wrong answers. I have perused the evidence. The service of notice dated 5.102004 is not in dispute and termination of tenancy on 31.10.2004 is also not in dispute. In cross examination, landlord states that he was not aware that for termination of tenancy 15 days prior notice is required to be given. Little latter he also states that he had given one year notice to tenant, but he did not wait for one year before filing the suit. The suggestion that he was receiving the rent even after service of notice is accepted by him. He has stated that even during pendency of the suit, he continued to receive the rent in cash. Waiver cannot be presumed only from the fact of receipt of amount equivalent to rent by respondent- landlord and something more should have been brought on record. That has not been brought on record and as such the Courts below have found that there is no waiver. Not only this, the service of notice in accordance with law and termination of tenancy is also concurrently held to be proved. I, therefore, found that no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.