M. Katju, J. - (1.) This revision has been filed against the impugned judgment of Judge Small Causes Court, Nainital dated 11.8.1983. The plaintiff-respondent was the landlord of the premises in dispute and defendant-revisionist was the tenant thereof. There is no dispute that this property is not covered by the Rent Control Act and it is admitted that the provisions of the Rent Control Act do not apply.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. It has been observed that notice determining tenancy has not been waived by the plaintiff and valid notice under Section 106 has been served on the defendant.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant urged that since the landlord accepted the rent after the determination of the tenancy there was waiver of the notice. This aspect as been considered in detail by the Court below and it has been held that there was no waiver. There is no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. However, if the defendant is still in possession of the premises in dispute he is given one year time to vacate the premises in dispute. The defendant-applicant will hand over possession of the premises to-the landlord on or before 8th April, 1994 and the defendant will also pay the rent regularly until he vacates. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;