JUDGMENT.- This is a civil revision petition against the judgment of the Court of Small Causes at Madras in Ejectment Suit No. 131 of 1975. The respondent herein instituted the suit under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for the ; eviction of the civil revision petitioner on the ground that the civil revision petitioner, who is the tenant of the respondent, has not been paying the rent regularly and that the tenancy has been duly terminated by a notice dated 6th February, 1975. The building is exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as it is a property belonging to a Trust. The civil revision petitioner, as the tenant, contended and reiterates the contention that the suit is not maintainable because the same has not been instituted by the Muthavalli, that there was no valid notice to quit and that by accepting the rent after issuing the notice to quit, the landlord has acknowledged his right to continue in possession. Mohamed Haneef, who has instituted the suit as the Manager of the Old Mosque Sunnath, Jamath, Kilvisharam, is the son of the Muthavalli and he has been appointed by the Muthavalli, who is his father, to perform the duties of a Muthavalli. He is, therefore, a Muthavalli within the meaning of section 3(f) of the Wakf Act, 1954. He is, therefore, entitled to maintain the suit. The contention that there was no valid notice to quit is based on the contention that the aforesaid Muthavalli is not entitled to issue the notice and is, therefore, without any substance in view of the fact that the aforesaid Muthavalli is found to be a Muthavalli within the meaning of the Wakf Act. It is contended that the landlord has accepted a demand draft for Rs. 280 sent along with Exhibit D-2 a notice dated 6th August, 1975and that, therefore, the notice to quit issued by him has become inoperative. There is no substance in this contention any more than in the other contention. The suit, it is seen, was filed on 24th March, 1975. The acceptance of rent thereafter by the landlord would not amount to his giving up the right that has accrued to him to evict the tenant as a result of a notice terminating the tenancy. Nor would such acceptance of rent create a fresh tenancy. The suit, it is seen, was filed on 24th March, 1975. The acceptance of rent thereafter by the landlord would not amount to his giving up the right that has accrued to him to evict the tenant as a result of a notice terminating the tenancy. Nor would such acceptance of rent create a fresh tenancy. In the circumstances, the judgment of the Court below is confirmed and this civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. 2. The civil revision petitioner is granted nine months’ time to vacate on condition that he should pay or deposit into Court the entire arrears of rent within 15 days from this date and continue to pay the rent every month thereafter without any default. If the civil revision petitioner fails to fulfil either of the conditions aforesaid, he shall be liable to be evicted straight away.