ORDER:- The tenant has preferred this revision petition against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the first appellate authority on the ground that the respondent bona fide required the premises for her own occupation.

2. The respondent requires the premises for residential purposes. It is found that the premises consist of two rooms, one occupied by the petitioner for residential purpose and the other for rolling beedies. The Rent Controller has found that the house was predominantly let out for residential purpose. But the first appellate authority has found that it was let out partly for residential and partly for beedi rolling purposes.

3. In view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Dakshinamurthi v. Thulji Bai, 1952-1 Mad LJ 390 : (AIR 1952 Mad 413 (FB)) it has been held that where the court finds the letting to be equally for residential and non-residential purposes and not mainly or substantially for the one or the other kind of purpose, the application by the landlord may well stand whether filed under Section 7(3)(a)(i) or Section 7(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent is legally entitled to claim the premises in question which has been let out partly for residenial and partly for non-residential purposes for her own occupation.

4. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application is not maintainable without a six months' notice as contemplated by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is strongly urged that the lease is for manufacturing purposes and that the lease therefore according to the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable by six months' notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy. I am clear that the contention is without any foundation. Admittedly there is no instrument of tenancy, but it is not disputed that the rent is paid monthly. In Ex.P-1 the notice of termination sent by the respondent, it is clearly averred that it is a monthly tenancy and it is significant that, in Ex.P-3 the reply there is no denial of this allegation. On the other hand, the averments made therein by the appellant implied that the tenancy was only a monthly and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act states that a lease for manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year only in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary and I have found that in this case the contract was only for a monthly tenancy.

5. In any event, as the finding is that the lease was one for residential and non-residential purposes, I am clear that 15 days notice given is adequate and legal. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly states that a lease of immoveable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month and in my view these words include a lease partly for residential and party for non-residential purposes. In L.A. Saunders v. Land Corpn. of Bengal Ltd., 1954-93 Cal LJ 354 : (AIR 1955 Cal 169) the Calcutta High Court has

ruled that a lease for partly a manufacturing or agricultural purpose and partly for other purposes requires a notice of only fifteen days. I respectfully agree with the decision.

6. As there is a concurrent finding on the bona fides of the respondent, there is no ground for interference in the revision.

7. In the result, the civil revision petition fails and is dismissed; but under the circumstances without costs. Time for vacating the premises two months granted. Petition dismissed.