: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.552 OF 2008 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. .. Applicants V/s. Palm Court Buildings .. Respondents Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mr. Rumi H. Mirza for the Applicants. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar i/b. Divyakant Mehta & Associates for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicant-defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Application challenging the finding of the Appellate Court that it was liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The applicants were the tenants of the respondents. The respondents issued a notice terminating the tenancy in view of the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The notice was issued and accepted by the applicants on 10th July, 2000. No reply has been submitted by the applicants to this notice. It appears that after this notice : 2 : was issued by the respondents, they continued to receive the amounts sent to them by the applicants. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants is that in view of the fact that the respondents had continued to receive the rent, even after the notice of termination of the tenancy was served by the applicants, it must be deemed that the notice had been waived by the respondents. This submission of the applicants has not been accepted by the Appellate Court though it was accepted by the trial Court. 3. The Appellate Court has found after considering the evidence on record that the applicants had not established that there was a waiver of the notice to quit. It is now well settled that merely because rent is accepted even after the notice terminating the tenancy is issued or during the pendency of the trial, it would not amount to the landlord waiving his right to evict the tenant from the suit premises. An additional issue was framed by the trial Court as to whether the defendants, i.e. the : 3 : applicants herein, had proved that the plaintiffs, i.e. the respondents herein, had waived their right to eviction. Although the trial Court has decided the issue in favour of the applicants, the Appellate Court has reversed the finding. In my opinion, the Appellate Court has not committed any error of law or facts. 4. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants seeks some time to vacate the suit premises. In my opinion, the suit premises should be vacated by the end of the academic year. Accordingly, the applicants shall handover the suit premises on or before 30th June, 2010 on the usual undertaking being furnished to this Court within a period of two weeks from today by a responsible officer of the Company as well as the occupants of the premises. .......