BACHULAL SAH Vs. GITA TIMBER CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff against a judgment and decree by which the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit for eviction.

(2.) Some material and important facts are stated below:(a) The defendant-respondent obtained the disputed lease on the basis of a registered deed of lease executed on August 30, 1973. The lease was for a period of 4 years from September 1, 1973 at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- payable according to English Calendar month. It was clearly stipulated in the said deed of lease that in default of regular payment of rent the lessor might re-enter on the land upon determination of the lease by giving 15 days' notice terminating within a month. The lease was obtained in connection with the running of a saw mill which was set up on the adjacent land to the north of the suit land. The plaintiff has alleged that after the expiry of the lease at the request of the defendant, he allowed him to continue as a tenant-at-will for some time to enable him to make alternative arrangement, but as the defendant showed his reluctance to vacate voluntarily, the lease was terminated by giving 15 days' notice as required under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent.(b) The defendant contested the suit. The defendant took the plea that he was continuing upon exercise of option to renew and was paying the rent regularly month by month. He has alleged that the plaintiff accepted rent up to the month of May, 1988 and thereafter stopped accepting rent in spite of regular tender of rent.(c) It is significant to note that in the written statement the defendant has not alleged that the notice of termination of tenancy/lease was insufficient or invalid. He admitted that he received the said notice of termination.(d) As no question about the validity or sufficiency of the notice was raised by the defendant, no specific issue on the question of notice was also raised. But, it appears from the judgments of both the courts below that the question of sufficiency of notice was considered at length.(e) The trial court recorded findings that after the expiry of the period of lease, the tenancy was renewed from month to month by payment and acceptance of rent, that the lease was for a manufacturing purpose, and that six months' notice was required. It, however, held upon an unacceptable reasoning that six months' notice was in fact given. Upon such view that the lease was lawfully terminated the trial Court decreed the suit.(f) The defendant-respondent filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court upheld the view that the lease was for a manufacturing purpose and that six months' notice was required under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The First Appellate Court, however, reversed the finding that six months' notice was given and dismissed the suit on the ground of insufficiency of notice of termination of lease.

(3.) Two questions arise for consideration in the present appeal, viz., whether the disputed tenancy was for manufacturing purpose and whether the tenancy was from year to year or from month to month. Under S.106 of the Act six months' notice is required when a lease is for manufacturing or agricultural purpose and the same is from year to year. Lease for a 'manufacturing purpose' is not necessarily a lease from year to year, but it can be a monthly or periodic lease in accordance with the terms of the contract and in such case six months' notice is not required.