Can a landlord who serves a notice to quit, then increases rent on a tenant’s behalf?

The notice to increase the rent was served under a misapprehension of the landlord’s power under the said Acts. The tenant paid the original rent by cheque, and the landlord kept the cheque, but wrote a letter to the tenant claiming payment of the balance on the footing that he had validly increased the rent. The tenant refused to pay the increased rent, and the landlord brought action for possession and contended that the term had been determined by the notice to quit. The court held that the defence of waiver by acceptance of rent after the notice to quit became effective failed. On appeal by the tenant, the appeal was dismissed. Hartell v. Blackler, supra, was disapproved. Lush, J. made a distinction between a notice terminating a lease on the ground of forfeiture, and by notice to quit. At p. 168 he says: “If a landlord with notice of a forfeiture accepts rent from the tenant, he cannot afterwards evict the tenant for that breach, and it is equally clear that no statement by the landlord when he accepts the rent, that he accepts it without prejudice to his right to re-enter for the forfeiture—no statement that he does not recognize the tenant as still his tenant, can preserve his right, if once he has given the right up, by evincing a clear intention to affirm the continuance of the tenancy.”