JUDGMENT : Satish Chandra, CJ. The trial court decreed a suit for ejectment. That decree was affirmed in revision. The Defendant has filed this second revision. 2. Two points have been argued by Learned Counsel for the applicant. The ; first is that the suit was not triable by the Small Cause Court. 3. A suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent became triable by the Small Cause Court by the Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, which came into force on 20th September, 1972. The transitory provision mentioned that suits pending on the regular side, in which evidence has commenced to be recorded will not be transferred. 4. Learned Counsel submits that on 27th April, 1971, the Plaintiff examined himself, and the same day the suit was decreed exparte, because the Defendant was absent. Ultimately the suit was restored on 22nd October, 1971. Thereafter no evidence was recorded till 20th September, 1972, when the Amending Act came into force. The suit was actually transferred to the Small Cause Court side on 30th November, 1972. 5. The recording of the oral evidence of the Plaintiff on 27th April, 1971, is not at all helpful. That was an exparte statement recorded in the absence of the Defendant. After the suit was restored and that decree was set aside, the uncross-examined oral testimony of the Plaintiff lost all value as evidence. It could not be used as such after the suit had been restored. The Small Cause Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. The second point submitted was that the landlord had waived the notice to quit by accepting the rent for a period subsequent to the one for which rent was demanded by the notice. 7. u/s 113, Transfer of Property Act it is requisite to establish that there was an intention to treat the tenancy as subsisting. Mere acceptance of rent is by itself not in every case sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Section 113. In the present case both the courts below have held that the Defendant has failed to establish that the Plaintiff had agreed to treat the tenancy as subsisting or to treat the Defendant as tenant. The finding is on a question of fact, and it does not disclose any jurisdictional error. This point also fails. 8. In the present case both the courts below have held that the Defendant has failed to establish that the Plaintiff had agreed to treat the tenancy as subsisting or to treat the Defendant as tenant. The finding is on a question of fact, and it does not disclose any jurisdictional error. This point also fails. 8. In the end Learned Counsel prayed for some time to vacate the premises which were a shop in which the Defendant was carrying on business. Having heard Learned Counsel on this, in my opinion the interests of justice will be met if three months time is given for this purpose. 9. In the result the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. The decree for ejectment shall not be executed for a period of three months from today.