The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act depends on the nature of the lease, and in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a lease for manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable by six months' notice.

This second appeal arises out of the concurrent Judgment and Decree of the Courts below - Principal District Judge, Vellore, made in A.S.No.24/2001, dated 28.09.2001, confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.1023/1985 by the Principal District Munsif, Vellore dated 30.03.2001. Unsuccessful Defendant is the Appellant.

2. Plaintiff is a temple – Sri Vembuliamman Temple. Case of the Plaintiff Temple is that the suit premises – Shop bearing D.No.157, Long Bazaar, Vellore was let out to the Defendant for a monthly rent of Rs.225/-. The Defendant has been running a flour mill shop therein. Tenancy between the Plaintiff temple and the Defendant is an oral tenancy. For insufficiency of space, for keeping articles including the temple Vaganam, the Plaintiff Temple requires the suit premises for own use and occupation. The Plaintiff temple issued the statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, on 29.04.1985. The said notice was issued to the Defendant giving clear fifteen days' notice. The Defendant received the notice and issued a reply on 04.05.1985, containing false allegations. The registered notice subsequently was returned unserved on 08.05.1985. The tenancy was terminated by giving fifteen days' clear notice ending with English Calendar month 31.05.1985. Since the Defendant received the said notice before 04.05.1985, the Defendant is bound to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the Plaintiff on 01.06.1985. Since the Defendant failed to vacate the premises, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction. The Plaintiff being a temple, the provisions of Rent Control Act does not apply to the tenancy.

3. Opposing the suit for eviction, the tenant - Defendant filed the Written Statement contending that originally suit premises was old and was in dilapidated condition without any roof and unfit for occupation. After being let out, the Defendant had put up new construction and the present superstructure does not belong to the Plaintiff temple. The Defendant is entitled to claim the benefits under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. The Defendant is also willing to pay market price of the suit property to the Plaintiff Temple. The Defendant is now paying rent of a sum of Rs.225/- per month. The Defendant is earning his livelihood only from the suit property. The requirement of the Plaintiff temple is not bonafide. Notice to quit is not in accordance with law. Since the premises was let out for manufacturing purpose, in law, six months' notice ought to have been given. For want of proper notice, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Since the Defendant is doing business in the premises, if he is evicted, it would cause him irreparable loss. Since there is no bonafide requirement, the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4. To substantiate their case, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW-1, a Clerk attached to the Plaintiff Temple was examined. Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants, D.W.s 1 and 2 were examined. Exs.C-1 and C-2 were marked. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court referring to the rental receipts Exs.A-5, A-6 and A-11 and a number of other decisions, held that the lease is from month to month. The trial court had also found that the temple had let out the premises including the building and hence the provisions of the Madras City Tenant's Protection Act is not applicable. Finding that the building belongs to the suit Temple, administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, the trial court found that the demised premises is required for keeping the articles of the temple and Vaganam and ordered eviction.

5. Confirming the findings of the trial court, the learned District Judge referring to Exs.A-5, A-6, A-11 and A-14 held that those documents clearly establish that the tenancy is only on monthly basis. Pointing out to Exs.A-11 to A-14, (wherein the Appellant himself has admitted his readiness to pay the rent on monthly wis