Applicability of the provisions of the Act.

R. Sengottuvelan, J.

The substantial questions of law that arise for determination in this second appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the lease of a Rice Mill consisting of the premises and the machinery intended for separating the husk from paddy and thereby converting the paddy in to rice is a lease for manufacturing purpose; and

2. Whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are applicable to the lease of the premises and machinery.

The suit property comprises of the premises and rice milling machinery situate in T.S. No 1825, Thandarampattu Road, Tiruvannamalai, and the same originally belonged to Annamalai Industrial Corporation which is under liquidation. The appellant herein had been in possession of the above said premises as lessee from the year 1958 on an annual rental of Rs. 3,500/-. The liquidator of the respondent firm who was empowered to realise the assets of the firm and distribute the same among its creditors as per the orders of the Court advertised for the sale of the rice mill in public auction. Several persons including the appellant, the lessee, bid at the auction and one S. Kuppuswami, Proprietor, Pichandavar Transport, Tiruvannamalai, was declared as the successful bidder. Since the liquidator is bound to deliver possession of the premises to the successful bidder he issued a notice under Ex. A. 35, dated 7th August, 1981, terminating the tenancy and demanding delivery of possession of the premises on 30th September, 1981. The said notice was served on the appellant on 10th August, 1981, as borne out by the postal acknowledgment. The appellant sent a reply Ex: A-35, dated 22nd September, 1981, alleging that he had spent a sum of 1,92,900/ towards several improvements and that he can be evicted only after the payment of the expenditure incurred by him for such improvements. The liquidator in the rejoinder Ex. A. 37, dated 23rd September, 1981, has stated that the alleged improvements are not admitted and that at the same time the appellant is not entitled to make improvements without the permission of the landlord and as such the appellant cannot claim any relief regarding the improvements. The stand taken by both the parties resulted in the suit O.S. No. 1919 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, in which the liquidator prayed for the relief of possession in respect of the suit premises. In his answer to the suit claim the appellant herein in addition to what he had stated in the reply notice also took a legal plea that the lease being one for a manufacturing purpose is a lease from year to year and the 15 days notice given as per Ex. A-35 dated 17th August, 1981, is not valid under law and as such the respondent is not entitled to the relief of delivery of possession. Though annual rent is payable for the premises yet in view of the fact that there was no registered rent deed the appellant was not in a position to plead that the lease is from year to year. Hence the appellant chose to plead that the lease is one for a manufacturing purpose which will be deemed to be a lease from year to year under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the tenancy is terminable only by six months notice expiring with the end of the year of tenancey. It is contended that 15 days notice given by the liquidator is not valid in law. On the evidence and the authorities cited both the courts below came to the conclusion that the lease in question is not one for a manufacturing purpose and held that the notice Ex A. 35 is valid in law since the lease of immovable property will be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable by 15 days notice ending with the tenancy month.

3. On the question of improvements both the courts below came to the conclusion that it is a matter for a separate suit and the same need not be considered while determining whether the liquidator is entitled to the relief of delivery of possession.

4. This concurrent find