RAGHAVAN Vs. AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the defendant in a suit for eviction from a building which is not covered by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Ext. A2 notice dated 16-10-1978 was issued to him by the respondent landlord-defendant under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Ext. B7 reply dated 18-10-1978 was sent on behalf of the defendant in answer to the plaintiff's notice. He stated that he was running a bakery shop in the premises and that be was therefore not in a position to vacate the building. The suit was instituted for recovery of the building stating that the defendant was liable to vacate it on determination of the lease by means of a proper notice issued in terms of S.106. The plaintiff also stated that the defendant defaulted payment of rent on due date from 1-6-1978. The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegation regarding arrears of rent. He did cot specifically plead that he used the building for manufacturing purposes. All that he stated was that the notice issued to him was not a valid notice and there was, therefore, no valid determination of the lease. The defendant did not examine himself. None spoke on bis behalf. In the circumstances both the courts below found that the rents were in arrears as pleaded by the plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence to show that the building was used for manufacturing purposes, both the courts found that the notice giving the defendant 45 days to quit was valid and it was in sufficient compliance with S.106.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that Ext. A1 rent deed shows that the building was let out to the defendant for the purpose of running a bakery shop. It also refers to the existence of an oven which the defendant himself had constructed before the execution of the lease, but at a time when he was in possession.

(3.) The fact that the building was let put for running a bakery business does not by itself indicate that the building was used for manufacturing purposes, unless there is pleading and evidence to show that the goods were in fact manufactured in the premises. Mere sale of manufactured goods may satisfy the expression "bakery business", but to satisfy the term "manufacturing" it should be shown that the goods sold were in fact manufactured in the leased premises. Reference to the existence of an oven does not by itself indicate that the oven bad been used. In the absence of any pleading or evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the building in question had been used for manufacturing purposes, the burden to prove which was indeed upon the person alleging that it was so used. See Allenbury Engineers v. S.R.K. Dalmia, AIR 1973 SC 425 .