Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: S.13

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959),   S. 13---Mere acceptance by landlord of rent relating to period sub- - sequent to notice to quit---Does not amount to waiver of such notice.   Before the enforcement of Rent Restriction Act and emergence of statutory tenancy owing to them, acceptance of rent, after notice to quit relating to the period following the notice usually amounted to a waiver of the notice and revival of contractual tenancy. The reason was that the right of the landlord to recover rent after the termination of lease almost always ceased to exist. If the landlord accepted rent in such circumstances, his conduct led to the conclusion that he was prepared to again accept the ex-lessee to occupy the premises as a lessee. The situation, how ever, has changed materially after the introduction of Rent Restric tion Acts, because the liability of the tenant to pay rent subsists under them after the contractual relationship of landlord and tenant is terminated by a notice to quit. If the landlord accepts rent, after giving notice to quit, during the subsistence of statutory tenancy, then he may be merely accepting what is due to him with out meaning to waive the notice to quit or to agree to accept the tenant as a contractual tenant, or with a view to give up any other right. Payment and acceptance of rent during the subsistence of statutory tenancy does not necessarily constitute contractual performance; therefore, if they are to be used for proving inten tion, of one or the other party, apart from the exercise of rights and discharge of obligations arising from statutory tenancy, then something more than mere payment and acceptance of rent must be established. For instance it should be shown that there was an intention to make a new contract or to give up some right.   Amulya Charan v. Calcutta Corporation A I R 1950 Cal. 256 B. N. Railway Co. v. Bal Mukunda A I R 1923 Cal. 663 and Mahadeo Prasad v. Sulekha Sarkar A I R 1954 Cal. 404 distinguished. Baldeodas v. G. P. Sonavalla A I R 1948 Bom. 385 ; Pulin Behari v. Miss Lila Dey A I R 1957 Cal. 627 and Panchanan v. Haridas A I R 1954 Cal. 460 rel. Date of hearing: 28th…