KAN SINGH, J.—This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from certain premises known as a Nohra situated in the town of Alwar.

2. According to the plaintiff respondent the suit Nohra including the constructions thereon originally belonged to the State of Rajasthan. The premises were let out to the defendant-appellant for residence for a period of ten years, on a monthly rent of Rs. 14.50. On 15th April, 1964 the suit premises were purchased by the plaintiff. Thereafter he served the tenant with a notice on 6th June, 1966 and terminated the tenancy. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide reasonable necessity. He averred that he wanted to construct a godown and also was desirous of putting up a mill for the manufacture of sugar, oil and dal. It was also averred that the defendant tenant had cut certain trees standing on the premises and thus damaged the property. The decree of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 43 50 was also prayed for.

3. The defendant contested the suit. It was admitted that the suit Nohra originally belonged to the State of Rajasthan and the same had been subsequently sold to the plaintiff. It was also admitted that the premises were let out by the State to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 14-50. It was, however, asserted that the premises bad been let out to the defendant for a manufacturing purpose and the defendant had put up a chaff-cutting machine on the land. It was denied that the plaintiff wanted the suit premises for his bona fide personal necessity. The cutting of the trees was also denied. The receipt of notice for termination of the tenancy was admitted but it was stated that notice was not valid, in that, a six-month notice for terminating the lease was required to be given. According to the defendant the plaintiff had an ulterior motive in seeking the ejectment of the defendant as he wanted to enhance the rent.

4. The learned Addition Munsiff Magistrate No. 2, Alwar before whom the suit was filed framed a number of issues. He held that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his bonafide reasonable necessity. He however did not accept the plaintiffs plea that the defendant had materially damaged the premises. Further, he held the notice for termination of tenancy to be valid. In the result he decreed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment.

5. Aggrieved by the decree of the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate the defendant went in appeal to the court of the Additional District Judge, Alwar but without any success.

6. It is in these circumstances that the defendant tenant has come in second appeal to this Court.

7. The appeal was admitted on 22nd February, 1973. The notice for the stay application was also issued. The stay application came up for orders on 9th March, 1973. Since there was only one contention as to whether the notice that was issued for terminating the tenancy was valid in the circumstances of the case, on the request of the parties both the stay application and the appeal were ordered to be taken up together.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the dominant purpose of the lease was manufacturing one. According to sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, six months notice was,therefore, required to be given to the tenant for terminating the lease.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent contests the stand. He raises a two-fold contention. Firstly, according to him the tenancy being for a fixed period of ten years and the period having expired long back in 1960, no notice was required to be given for terminating the lease as the defendant was continuing on the premises as a statutory tenant on account of the protection under sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the Act). In the second place it was argued that the lease was, if at all, both for residential as well as manufacturing purposes and in such a case the tenancy could be ta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document