( 1 ) IN a suit based on landlord-tenant relationship, the appellant has been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises. The defendant has come up in appeal.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the plaintiffs- respondents are owner-landlords of the premises known as N-97, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The defendant- appellant has been a tenant in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000. 00. The tenancy runs from month to month, parallel to English calendar month. By notice dated 10. 7. 1993 the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the defendant w. e. f. 31. 8. 1993 calling upon it to vacate the premises. The notice was replied to. On 3. 12. 1993, the defendant sent an amount of Rs. 14,000. 00 to the plaintiff No. 2. This amount was in the form of a bank draft dated 3. 12. 1993 and accompanied by letter dated 3. 12. 1993 sent through registered post. The suit for ejectment was filed on 3. 1. 1994. It was contested by the defendant -appellant mainly on two grounds : firstly, that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid; and secondly, that the notice stood waived by the plaintiffs having accepted rent for the month of September, 1993 i. e. for the period falling subsequent to the date of termination of tenancy. On both the counts the trial court has held in favour of the plaintiffs and directed a decree for ejectment to be passed.

( 3 ) BEFORE this Court both the pleas have been raised and canvassed by Mr Mukul Rohtagi, the learned senior counsel for the defendant/appellant. However, during the course of hearing, the plea as to invalidity of the notice was not seriously pressed, and rightly so, as no fault can be found with the notice terminating the tenancy tested on the touchstone of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The only plea seriously pressed and which survives for adjudication is of waiver of the notice of ejectment.

( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the tenancy is not governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957. The plea of waiver has to be examined in the light of the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act, to be more specific S. 113 thereof.

( 5 ) THE notice dated 10. 7. 43 terminating the tenancy w. e. f. 31. 8. 93 was served admittedly much before the expiry of 15 days prior to the date of termination of tenancy. Rent for the month of September, 1993 was not tendered by the defendant -tenant along with the reply dated 22. 8. 1993. After the lapse of more than three months of the date of reply, the letter dated 3. 12. 1993 was sent to one of the plaintiffs accompanied by a bank draft in an amount of Rs. 14,000. 00. The contents of the letter would be of importance and are therefore reproduced hereunder :

"regd WITH A/d VSC/accts/93/103-12-1993 To Justice Tikka Jagjit Singh Bedi ( Reld ). Sector IOA House No. 291 Chandigarh. Dear Sir, Sub: Rent of premises No. N-97 Panchshila Park, New Delhi-17 We are sending herewith a demand draft No. 689937 dated 3. 12. 1993 drawn on State Bank of Patiala for Rs. 14000. 00 ( Rupees fourteen thousand only) is- sued in favour of Tikka Jagjit Singh Bedi and Harjeet Singh Bedi, payable at Chandigarh in respect of above for the month of Sept 1993. Please acknowledge and send official receipt for the same. Thanking you, Yours faithfully) for Vijayshree Comittercial Pvt Ltd End: As above. "on 5. 8. 94 one of the plaintiffs gave a reply which reads as under :

"koth No. 3406, Sector 24 CHANDIGARH JUDGE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA CHANDIGARH 5th AUGUST, 1994 M/s Vijay Shree Commercial Pvt Ltd 4, India Exchange Place CALCUTTA Dear Sir, I acknowledge the receipt of Draft No. 689937 for Rs. 14,000. 00 sent by you. This amount is accepted as damages/mesne profits for use and occupation of house No. N-97, Panchsheel Park New Delhi without prejudice to the termination notice dated 10. 7. 1993 and without prejudice to suit No. 7 of 1994 pending in the court of Shri P. K. Basin, Addl District Judge Delhi. Yours sincerely, (HARJIT SINGH BEDI