MD SHAHARIYAR BAIG Vs. R P BHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the suit for ejectment that has given rise to this appeal, the landlord-appellant alleged a number of grounds which, if proved, would have warranted a decree of ejectment against the tenant-respondent under Section 13 (1)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The defence of the tenant against the delivery of possession was also struck out by an order under Section 17 (3) which was also upheld by this Court in Revision. The learned trial 3udge also held that the various grounds alleged by the landlord, like default in payment of rent, unauthorised sub-letting etc. , have been substantiated on the evidence on record. The learned 3udge has, however, still dismissed the suit on the ground that the tenancy being for running a Saw Mill was for manufacturing purpose and, therefore, required six months' notice for its termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and was bad for want of such a notice as only one month's notice was given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 3 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(2.) WHEN the learned Judge decided the suit and decreed its dismissal in 1978, the law as then settled was that the one month's notice provided in Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act was in the nature of a notice of suit and, therefore, in order to obtain a decree of ejectment against a premises-tenant, a notice terminating his tenancy under Section 105of the Transfer of Property act was still very much necessary over and above a notice under section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, though both the notices could be combined in one document. As is well-known, the Special Bench decision of this court in Suraya Properties (A. I. R.) 1964 Calcutta 1) and the various decisions preceding and following the same were clear authorities on the point. Under the law then prevailing, the learned Judge was, therefore, right in holding that a notice satisfying the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was a must when the instant suit was filed and disposed of. But we are afraid that the learned Judge was not right in holding that the lease being for running a Saw Mill was one for manufacturing purpose 'and' required six months' notice for its termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) THE tests laid down in the various decisions of the Supreme court for determination as to what is manufacturing purpose has been summarised by the Supreme Court in a rather recent decision under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act in Idandas v. Anant (A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 127 at 129) thus :-