This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge No. 2, Silchar, affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif of Silchar.

2. The plaintiffs' case is that the de­fendant is a tenant under them in res­pect of the suit holding, which is a room in a two-storeyed building. The rent was payable at the rate of Rupees 12/- per month according to the Bengali calendar month. They, therefore, gave a notice to the defendant on 7th Bhadra 1336 B. S., corresponding to 24th August 1959, by registered post asking the defen­dant to vacate at the end of the month of Bhadra. They also demanded payment of all arrears of rent within seven days of the receipt of that notice. The de­fendant did not reply to the notice nor complied with the demand and hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

3. The defendant pleaded that he took the settlement for starting his trunk factory and gold-smith work-shop. Hence the notice is invalid and insufficient under the law. He also denied that the plaintiffs have any bona fide requirement of their own for the premises.

4. The learned Munsiff held that the lease was for manufacturing purpose and hence the notice given in this case was invalid and insufficient. The learned Munsiff, however, held that since the defendant has admitted that he has acqu­ired a residence at Silchar Bilpar, he is liable to be evicted under section 6 (1) (f) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Con­trol Act. He also held against the plain­tiffs regarding their bona fide require­ment. Since, however, the notice was held to be invalid, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. The learned Subor­dinate Judge dealt only with the point of notice and agreed with the finding of the learned Munsiff that the lease was for manufacturing purpose, and, as such, the notice giving the defendant only fifteen days' time expiring with the month of the tenancy is insufficient in law.

5. Mr. Lahiri, the learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that both the courts below erred in law in deciding against the plaintiffs regarding the vali­dity of the notice of eviction served in this suit. He contends that there is no averment in the written statement that the notice is invalid on the ground taken, namely that the lease was for manufacturing purpose. On the other hand, it is submitted that the admitted position being that rent was payable monthly according to Bengali calendar, the lease must be held to be from month to month. He further submits that even on the facts found by the court below, the case does not come within the ambit of the expression "manufacturing pur­pose" within the meaning of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He submits that the popular rather than the etymological meaning should be given to the expression "manufacturing purpose".

6. I have gone through the findings of the courts below on this point. Both the courts below found after appreciation of the evidence that the lease was for manufacturing purpose. The defendant in paragraph 7 of his written statement describing the real facts averred that he has been running the business of manu­facturing and selling trunks and of gold and silver there in the suit premises.

In paragraph 4 of the written state­ment, the defendant avers that the notice described in the plaint is illegal, invalid and insufficient. Paragraphs 4 and 7 read together do not support the conten­tion of Mr. Lahiri that the ground of invalidity of the notice, which was pleaded in the courts below and accept­ed by the courts, was absent in the writ­ten statement. The question of validity of the notice was definitely pleaded by the defendant in his written statement and the courts below rightly went into it Although no specific issue was fram­ed in the suit. The courts below dis­cussed this issue while discussing issue no. 2 regarding the maintainability of the suit. No objection, therefore, can be taken by the plaintiffs on this techni­cal ground in a second appeal.

7.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document