A lease of an open plot of land for manufacturing bricks is a lease for manufacturing purposes within the meaning of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT-This is a second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the District Court at Satara dismissing this appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for possession of the suit premises.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit premises together with the arrears of rent and costs of the suit. According to the plaintiffs the suit property was purchased by Deu Krishna Sonavane, who was then a minor by his guardian mother Rahi vide the registered sale deed dated 11th June 1921 and all the plaintiffs bad joint interest in the suit property. The plaintiffs then stated that the suit plot is being used for manufacturing even bricks since the last several years and was leased out to different tenants on a monthly basis. The plaintiffs also stated that the bricks are manufactured into ovens installed over the suit property since the beginning. It is their case that the defendants were given the suit plot on lease only for 11 months. According to the plaintiffs they terminated the tenancy of the defendants by notice dated 9th February 1970 served on defendant No. 1 as the manager of the joint family of the defendants. According to them as the lease of the defendants was lawfully terminated, they were entitled to recover arrears of rent as well as for possession of the property.

3. The defendants contested the suit and raised various contentions. The main contention raised by tile defendants was that the notice given was illegal. According to them as the lease was for manufacturing purposes it is to be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable by six months' notice, which was admittedly not given in the present case. After appreciating all the evidence on record, the learned Judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that since the lease was for manufacturing purposes, it is deemed to be a yearly lease and hence the notice given by the plaintiffs was illegal. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs' suit for possession was dismissed, though their suit for arrears of rent was decreed.

4. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the District Court, and the learned District Judge, Satara by his judgment dated 22nd July 1974 also came to the conclusion that the property was leased out for manufacturing bricks, which amounted to a lease for manufacturing purposes and hence the notice given was bad in law. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and as already observed it is this finding recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appeal Court Which is challenged in this second appeal.

5. Shri Aklujkar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has contended before me that the lease of an open plot of land for manufacturing bricks is not a lease for manufacturing purposes within the meaning of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to him in making bricks out of clay no manufacturing process is involved and therefore, the learned Judges of both the Courts below have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the lease granted by the plaintiffs was not for manufacturing purposes within the meaning of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not possible for me to accept this contention. It is no doubt true that the expression" manufacturing purposes" is not defined in the Transfer of Property Act. However, connotation of the said Word is by now well settled and obviously the said expression will have to be understood in its popular sense. It is not necessary to deal with this question in detail in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Allenbury Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia and others1. The expression "manufacturing purposes" as used in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act fell for consideratio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document