Pankaj Mithal,J.

1. This is defendants revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgement and order dated 24.08.2016 and the consequential decree of eviction from the premises in dispute Municipal No. 18 situate in village Rithani, Delhi Road, Meerut passed by the Small Cause Court.

2. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent for rent and eviction filed on the basis of 30 days notice dated 04.04.2011 given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been decreed by the court below.

3. The only argument of Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that the premises was let out for manufacturing purposes and, therefore, in view of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 the tenancy would be from year to year terminable by six months notice. The decree of eviction, therefore, on the basis of 30 days notice is bad in law.

4. Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 1696 Samir Mukharjee vs. Davinder K. Bajaj and others submits s