- (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff respondent is the owner of a building which was let out to the defendant appellant under an unregistered rent-note executed by the defendant-appellant. The rent agreed to be paid was from month to month at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month according to the Hindi Calendar.
(2.) THE evidence disclosed that the lease was for the purpose of establishing a Dal factory, that is, for a manufacturing purpose. The defendant-appellant held over after the expiry of the rent note and rent was accepted by the plaintiff-respondent. On the 13th January, 1960, the plaintiff-respondent gave fifteen days' notice to the defendant-appellant for vacating the premises and when the defendant-appellant did not vacate, he filed the present suit for his ejectment. The defendant-appellant's contention, Inter alia, was that the notice was defective inasmuch as the lease being for a manufacturing purpose he was entitled to six months' notice under the provisions of Section 106, T. P. Act. The trial Court held that only fifteen day's notice was necessary and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court held that since the defendant-appellant had been holding over for a number of years the original lease of eleven months should be construed to have become a lease from year to year and that six months' notice was necessary and therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. In Second Appeal a learned Judge of this Court upheld the trial Court's decision and restored its decree.
(3.) IN this Special Appeal the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that by holding over the lease became a yearly tenancy and that six months' notice was necessary because the lease was for a manufacturing purpose.;