ORDER A.H. Khan, J. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, arises out of proceedings of eviction under the Rent Control Act. The Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, alleging that the house which he had recently purchased was required for his own needs. The suit was resisted by the Defendant, the tenant. The trial Court dismissed the suit but on appeal, a decree was passed in favour of the Plaintiff. The present appeal is filed against the order of the first appellate Court. So far as the question in this appeal is whether the house is required for the use of the Plaintiff, it is a question of fact and cannot be disturbed in second appeal. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that before passing a decree for eviction, the Court should have directed the Plaintiff to pay compensation to the tenant and in this connection he refers to Section 6 of the M.B. Accommodation Control Act, 1955. But Section 6 of the Act applies to cases in which a landlord seeks eviction of a tenant from non-residential accommodation. But the present case is with regard to residential accommodation and therefore Section 6 is not attracted in the present case. Another point urged by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that by accepting rent during the pendency of the suit, the landlord must be deemed to have waived notice to quit. In the first place the Rent Control Act, which is a special Act, does not talk of any waiver of notice to quit. Secondly, even if Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act is made applicable to it, there must be some act on the part of the landlord showing intention to treat the lease as subsisting. If during the pendency of a suit, rent or an amount equivalent to rent is accepted and the case is continued, then the intention of the landlord is obvious. He has no intention to withdraw the notice and that is why he is continuing the proceedings. Mere acceptance of rent, to which a landlord is entitled even on eviction, does not ipso facto indicate that he wants the tenant to continue. For reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed