R. SHOBHA BAI Vs. D.R. JAYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondent, none represents him. Suit was filed by the petitioner for eviction and other relief before the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in SC No. 2923 of 2011 which came to be disposed of after inquiry, on 21-11-2012 wherein while determining the points for consideration on the contention raised by the parties, the Trial Court stating that tenancy is not terminated as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, also negated the contention of the plaintiff that she is entitled for the relief of possession and other incidental relief. Being aggrieved, petitioner landlord is before this Court on the contention that petition premises was let out in the usual course and not for a manufacturing unit. The unit run by the respondent is not a manufacturing activity except twisting of silk yarn in the usual course which does not involve any process of change of product and therefore, the finding of the Trial Court on the point of six months notice and holding that it is a manufacturing unit is erroneous and thus, sought for allowing the suit and decree the same.

(2.) Though the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in South Bihar Sugar Mills Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another, 1968 AIR(SC) 922wherein it is held that the act 'manufacture' implies a change but every change in the raw material is not manufacture and there must be such a transformation that a new and different article must emerge having a distinct name, character or use. The ratio, of course in the case, is applicable to the case on hand.

(3.) The respondent is shown to be carrying out threading from the cocoons. The cocoons are transformed into thread in simple process and the thread will be twisted. This does not include any manufacturing activity. Learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, 1963 AIR(SC) 791In para 14 of the judgment, referring to another judgment, the Apex Court has observed that 'manufacture' implies a change. But every change is not manufacture and every change of article is a result of treatment, labour and manipulation but, something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and a different article must emerge having a distinct name, character or use.