JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. (Oral) :- Heard and the judgments rendered by the Courts below perused. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appeal is worth being admitted on the substantial questions of law as to whether the acceptance of rent after termination of the tenancy amounts to revival of the tenancy and that the notice terminating the tenancy was defective inasmuch as the tenancy was not terminated by the end of the month. 3. In so far as the question about defect in the notice is concerned, the findings of the trial Court are that vide notice Ext. P-1 the tenancy was terminated and the shop in question was to be delivered to the plaintiff/respondent by the appellant/defendant on the close of 30th of June, 2002. The factual position in this regard is not in dispute. Evidently, the period of notice terminated with the close of the month. Thus, the substantial question sought to be raised in this regard is not involved for determination. 4. In so far as the question regarding revival of tenancy on acceptance of rent after the termination of tenancy is concerned, the preponderance of the view as taken by the various High Courts including this Court is that acceptance of rent after suit for ejectment is not to be regarded as a waiver. This court in Raj Mai v. Bhim Sen, 1998(2) SLJ 1426 took the aforesaid view and thus it is a settled position that mere acceptance of rent after termination of tenancy will not revive the tenancy. 5. In view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal therefore, it is not worth being admitted. 6. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. CMP No. 1012 of 2004 In view of the final disposal of the appeal, this application has become in fructuous and is accordingly dismissed.