TRILOKSINGH Vs. RAMPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by defendant 2 is directed against a decree of the Illrd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 3rd Decem - ber 1966, affirming the judgment and decree of the Ilnd Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, dated 25th February 1966, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and mesne profits.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are these. THE plaintiff, Ram Prasad Patel, had let out a portion of house no. 444/445, Galgala Ward, Jabalpur, delineated in red colour in the plaint map, to Bhojraj Arya, defendant 1. THE initial letting of the premises was for non -residential purpose. It appears that, from the very inception of the lease, the said Bhojraj started assembling sewing machines for sale in the name and style, of Hindustan Sewing Machine Industries in the suit premises. In the year 1954, he entered into a partnership with the appellant, Triloksingh, for carrying on this business in the name and style of Hindustan Sewing Machine Indu - stries. THE partnership firm was enlisted as a small scale manufacturing unit by the Small Industries Service Institute attached to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. THEreafter, the firm was issued a certi - ficate of registration as a small scale industry manufacturing sewing machines. This partnership continued till 31st December 1962 when it was dissolved. As a result of the dissolution, Bhojraj Arya retired from the partnership which was taken over by Triloksingh and it became his proprietary concern. THE deed of dissolution, dated 18 January 1963, stipulated that - "the business premises at 444, Galgala, Jabalpur, of the partnership firm stood rented in the name of the outgoing partner, Shri Bhojraj Arya, which now will be rented by the other partner, Sardar Triloksingh. Shri Bhojraj will have no right against these premises and he will not put any hindrances even if the premises continue to stand rented in his name. He will try to get the same transferred in the name of Sardar Triloksingh."

(3.) THE first question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the contract of tenancy was validly determined by the notice to quit, dated 8th February 1963. THE contention urged on behalf of the appellant Triloksingh is that the lease was for a manufacturing purpose and thus the tenancy was from year to year requiring six months' notice. Relying upon 0the admission of the plaintiff, Ram Prasad P.W.I, the learned counsel further cpntends that the initial letting was for a manufacturing purpose. THE contentions cannot be accepted for reasons which I shall state presently.