JUDGMENT

N. P. SINGH, J.:—The defendant in a suit for eviction is the appellant before this Court. The suit plot was let out to the appellant as a monthly tenant for an automobile garage, The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") issued a notice on 10-7-1975 determining the lease in favour of the appellant with effect from 31-7-1975. Later the suit in question was filed. As the suit premises had not been let out for residential purposes, it was an admitted position that the Central Provinces and Berar Letting Of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 was not applicable.

2. The Trial Court dismissed the said suit on a finding that as the appellant was using the suit premises for manufacturing purposes, a six months notice was required before the lease could be determined and as the notice issued to the appellant under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred as "the Act") had purported to determine the tenancy with 15 days. notice, the suit in question could not have been filed. On appeal being filed on behalf of the respondent, the Assistant Judge came to the conclusion that the premises in question had not been let out for any manufactu