SURESWAR PANDIT Vs. ASMA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-This second appeal has been filed by the defendant. The only question in this second appeal is whether the notice issued under Section 106 is a valid one. The suit was filed for ejectment and in paragraph 2 of the plaint it has been stated as follows: "That about 14/15 years ago, the defendant No. 1 came to occupy the suit land to do business of pottery, by paying monthly rental of Rs.40.00 with assurance that he could construct 'KUTCHA' houses on the land at his own costs and shall remove the said structures at his own costs and shall give vacant possession thereof as and when required by the plaintiff".

(2.) In the notice which is Ext. 1 it has been stated as follows:

(3.) It is an admitted position that pottery business is a manufacturing process. What is manufacturing process came up for consideration in AIR 1982 SC 127 (Idandas v. Anant Ram Chandra Phadke), wherein the Supreme Court held as follows .