Prakash Krishna, J.— Challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2011 passed by the trial Court in S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2009 whereby the suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages etc. has been decreed, the present revision has been preferred by the applicants, the tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed. The tenancy was terminated by means of notice dated 12.02.2009 which was served on 16.02.2009. The following two points were urged in support of the revision. Firstly, that the basis of suit was an agreement of tenancy which has not been filed. Secondly, notice stood waived as rent was accepted subsequently on 31st March, 2009. So far as the first point is concerned, relationship of landlord and tenants was not disputed by the defendants. Rather it was admitted vide para-2 of the written statement. The agreement in question is unregistered document and as such non filing of the such document is of no consequence. It is held that non filing of the agreement is of little consequence. So far as the second point is concerned, Shri Madhav Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that on the facts of the present case there would be no waiver of the notice as it was never intended to be waived. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarup Singh Gupta v. S. Jagdish Singh and another, 2006 (3) ALD 73 SC. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the applicants-tenant directly deposited the rent in the account of the plaintiff. Plaintiff never communicated their intention to waive the notice. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is well founded. On the facts of the present case, it is clear that the landlord did not waive the notice determining the tenancy. There is no overt act on the part of the landlord signifying his intention to waive the notice. Deposit of rent in the landlord's account is unilateral act of the tenant. Any other point was not pressed. At the end, learned counsel for the applicants seeks some reasonable time to vacate the disputed accommodation to which Shri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. Deposit of rent in the landlord's account is unilateral act of the tenant. Any other point was not pressed. At the end, learned counsel for the applicants seeks some reasonable time to vacate the disputed accommodation to which Shri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. The defendants-applicants are granted time upto 31st August, 2012 to vacate the disputed accommodation subject to the following conditions: (1) The defendant-applicants shall deposit the entire arrears of rents and damages for use and occupation, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited for the period upto 31st August, 2012 within a period of one month from today before trial court. (2) Within one month, a responsible officer of the defendant-applicants shall also file an undertaking on affidavit before the trial court that the bank will vacate the disputed accommodation on or before 31st August, 2012 and shall hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff landlord without creating any third party interest. In case of default in compliance of any of the conditions stipulated above, the time granted shall stand vacated automatically. The revision is dismissed, summarily. _