AGARWALA, J.:- This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff respondent is the owner of a building which was let out to the defendant appellant under an unregistered rent note executed by the defendant-appellant. The rent agreed to be paid was from month to month at the rate of Rs.50/- per month according to the Hindi Calendar.

2. The evidence disclosed that the lease was for the purpose of establishing a Dal factory, that is, for a manufacturing purpose. The defendant-appellant held over after the expiry of the rent note and rent was accepted by the plaintiff-respondent. On the 13th January, 1950, the plaintiff-respondent gave fifteen days notice to the defendant-appellant for vacating the premises and when the defendant-appellant did not vacate, he filed the present suit for his ejectment.

The defendant-appellants contention, inter alia, was that the notice was defective inasmuch as the lease being for a manufacturing purpose he was entitled to six months notice under the provisions of S.106, T.P. Act. The trial Court held that only fifteen days notice was necessary and decreed the suit.

The lower appellate Court held that since the defendant-appellant had been holding over for a number of years the original lease of eleven months should be construed to have become a lease from year to year and that six months notice was necessary and therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. In Second Appeal a learned Judge of this Court upheld the trial Courts decision and restored its decree.

3. In this Special Appeal the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that by holding over the lease became a yearly tenancy and that six months notice was necessary because the lease was for a manufacturing purpose.

4. In our opinion there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel. The rent-note, as we have already observed, was for a period of eleven months and there was an express contract in the lease that the rent would be paid from month to month. S.106, T.P. Act provides as follows.

"106. Duration of certain leases in the absence of written contract or local usage. In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immoveable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months notice; and a lease of immoveable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee by thirty days notice."

5. The presumption laid down under this section is that a lease of immoveable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year and can he terminated by six months notice, in the absence of a contract to the contrary. In the present case there was a specific contract that the rent would be paid from month to month. Further the lease was for a fixed period of eleven months only.

Consequently under the contract it could not be said that the lease was from year to year and that as such it could only be determined by a six months notice.

6. No doubt the appellant held over for a number of years. Under S.116 of the Transfer of Property Act the effect of holding over has been described in these words:

"116. Effect of holding over. If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee. and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in S.106".

7. Renewal of a lease from year to year or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, is to be presumed only when there