PARSURAM MISHRA Vs. PADMALOCHAN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has filed this appeal against a confirming decision.

(2.) SUIT was filed for eviction from the disputed house and for realisation of arrear house rent from the month of December, 1995. It is not disputed that the defendant -appellant was a tenant under the plaintiff -respondent in respect of the disputed house. After issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short, the'T.P.Act'), suit was filed. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that he was not a monthly tenant but he was a yearly tenant and the notice issued by the plaintiff was invalid.

(3.) THE main question raised in this appeal relates to the validity of the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the defendant was preparing and selling food articles such as, sweetmeat and as such, it should be taken that the house was taken for manufacturing purpose and it must be taken that the tenancy was from year to year. The Courts below negatived such contention saying that even though sweetmeats are prepared, it cannot be taken that the defendant was engaged in manufacturing process.