Manufacturing Tenancy Protection Requires Specific Pleadings and Proof of Dominant Purpose to Warrant Six Months' Notice

The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit (T.S. 61/2005) for eviction of the defendant/appellant from a "chittebera" shop room (Ka schedule premises)

The plaintiff claimed ownership via purchase and alleged that the defendant was a monthly tenant who defaulted on rent and caused damage

The plaintiff issued an eviction notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), which was returned as "refused"

The defendant contested, claiming they had constructed the shop themselves with the previous owner's permission and that the eviction notice was never tendered

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff

The defendant appealed to the High Court, asserting the tenancy was for "manufacturing purposes" (a sweet shop), requiring a six-month notice under Section 106 TPA instead of the fifteen days provided

1. Whether the Lower Courts applied the proper legal test in determining if the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was properly served

2. Whether the notice issued was invalid for failing to provide the six-month period required for manufacturing tenancies under Section 106 of the TPA

Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, mandates six months' notice for agricultural or manufacturing leases and fifteen days' notice for other purposes

Section 28 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, creates a presumption of due service for registered posts

The court applied the precedent from Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke, defining "manufacture" as a process transforming raw materials into a new commodity

Sri Iswar Sridhar Jiw v. Anup Lal Sharma, which places the burden of proving a manufacturing lease exclusively on the party asserting it

Ram Kumar Das v. Jagadish Chandra Deo, which establishes that a yearly lease (including manufacturing) requires a registered instrument under Section 107 TPA

Regarding service, the Court found that the plaintiff examined the postal peon (P.W. 2) and Postmaster (P.W. 3), who testified that the notice was tendered and refused

Since the defendant failed to prove collusion or discredit these witnesses, the "refused" endorsement constituted valid service

On the issue of manufacturing, the Court noted that the defendant did not specifically plead in the written statement that the lease was for manufacturing purposes, nor was it a registered lease

Following Ibrahim Uddin, the Court held that relief cannot be granted on grounds outside the pleadings

Furthermore, as the lease was not registered, it could not be presumed to be a year-to-year manufacturing lease under Section 107 TPA

The Court also addressed the First Appellate Court's order to forfeit security, finding it lacked reasons and was thus unsustainable

Applying principles of "Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience," the Court recognized the hardship caused by terminating a 40-year-old business and decided to award token compensation

It held that the notice was validly served and that the defendant failed to prove the tenancy was for manufacturing purposes

The Court set aside the order forfeiting the security deposit

The respondents were directed to pay the appellants ₹10,000 as compensation for hardship. The appellants were granted three months to vacate the premises, with an additional month if the compensation is not paid within that timeframe