KISHAN LAL Vs. LAL RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by Kishan Lal who was a deft, in a suit for ejectment from a shop in which a flour mill used to be worked by him. The suit was brought by Bam Chander, plff. resp. His case was that the deft., Kishan Lal, had taken the shop from him on a monthly rent of Rs. 11 on 24 5-1938. The plff. gave notice to Kishan Lal in March, 1945, to vacate this shop on 23-3-1945. The deft, did not vacate the shop & consequently a suit for ejectment was brought.

(2.) The main defence of the deft., with which I am now concerned in this second appeal, is that the notice was invalid inasmuch as he should have been given six months' notice as required under Section 106, T. P. Act, as the shop wa3 given to him for manufacturing purposes.

(3.) The lease, in this case, was created by a document executed by the parties on 24-51938. By this document, Kishan Lal was to remain in possession of the shop for one year from that date & was to metal a flour mill therein on payment of Rs. 11 every month as rent. After the year was over, Kishan Lal continued to hold over till notice to quit was given to him in March, 1945. Both the Courts below have held that the purpose for which the shop was taken was a manufacturing purpose. The trial Court was, however, of the view that, as such, six months' notice was necessary, while the lower appellate Court took the view that fifteen days' notice was sufficient as, after the period of lease was over, Kishan Lal must be deemed to be holding over as a tenant from month to month.