The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the premises in dispute had been let out to him for manufacturing purposes and in view of Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, therefore, the lease companyd be terminated by the landlady only by six months numberice expiring with the end of the year of tenancy, and since the plaintiff had served only 30 days numberice, the same was invalid and ineffective to terminate the tenancy.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 11 12 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
850/ per annum to the defendant who was doing the business of retreading of tyres in the said premises.
M. Abdul Khader, R. Satis, Vijay K. Pandita and E. Agarwala for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Jitendra Sharma and V. P. Chaudhary for the Respondent.
The plaintiff, therefore, sent one months numberice to the defendant terminating his tenancy.
Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. Whether a lease of a premises for carrying on the business of retreading of tyres is a lease for manufacturing purposes within the companytemplation of Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, is the only question that falls for companysideration in this appeal by special leave directed against a judgment, dated December 11, 1968, of the High Court of Allahabad.
969/67.
The question arises in these circumstances.
The defendant defaulted in payment of rent.
1722 of 1969.
All the companyrts below negatived this companytention and have companycurrently held that the retreading of tyres, is number a manufacturing purpose and, therefore, 30 days numberice given by the plaintiff to the defendant for terminating his tenancy, was valid.
The plaintiff respondent let out the accommodation in dispute at a rent of Rs.
