S LEELAVATHY Vs. K M SUBRAMANIAM DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Erode, in O.S.No.285 of 1990 dated 17.02.1995, in decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, past and future damages for use and occupation of the property at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. Defendant is the appellant. The claim made by the plaintiff was at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month and as the decree was passed only for Rs.800/- per month, there is a Cross Objection filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE subject matter of the suit was described in the plaint as 'B' schedule and by reading the plaint, one may understand that it is a property described in Ex.A-1 lease deed dated 18.04.1979. That was the lease deed in between the parties in respect of 90 cents of vacant land out of total extent one acre and add. THE respondent/ plaintiff is admittedly the owner. THE appellant/defendant is the lessee under Ex.A1. THE monthly rent was fixed at Rs.400/- per month. THE appellant/defendant was also permitted to construct a screen printing factory and accordingly, the appellant had constructed the same and is running the said factory. THE lease period mentioned was five years.

(3.) MR. V.K. Muthusamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the screen printing work done in the factory of the defendant in the suit premises may not be called as a manufacture and, therefore, only 15 days notice given under Ex.A2 is valid. In this connection, reliance was placed upon the decision reported in Idandas ..vs.. Anant Ramchandra (1982 SC 127), wherein the tests for determining whether a lease is granted for purpose of "manufacturing process" were mentioned as follows: