Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard counsel for the revisionist Sri SP Giri and counsel for plaintiff-respondents Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma.

2. The instant revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, challenging the judgement and decree dated 17.2.2018 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Agra decreeing SCC Suit No. 65 of 2014 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

3. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents for eviction of the revisionist from property No. 11B/96 Foundry Nagar, Hathras Road, Agra comprising of one hall and a tin shed. It was alleged that the rent was Rs. 10,000/- per month, consequently, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the building; that tenancy of the revisionist was terminated by one month’s notice dated 25.7.2014; that the revisionist failed to vacate even after the expiry of the period specified in the notice. The revisionist contested the suit alleging that the rent was Rs. 5000/- per month; that the tenanted premises was given on lease for running a karkhana; that notice dated 25.7.2014 does not validly terminate his tenancy in as much as lease being for manufacturing purpose, six months notice was required; that there was no default in payment of rent and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court framed four points for determination. On the first point, it held that the rent of the premises was Rs. 5000/- per month. It also held while deciding the second point that rent being more than Rs. 2000/-, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. The third point related to the validity of the notice and while deciding the said issue the trial Court held that one month’s notice was sufficient to terminate the tenancy. It held that in the absence of any registered lease deed, even if the tenancy was for manufacturing purpose, six months’ notice was not required for terminating the tenancy. For coming to such conclusion, it placed reliance upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in Samir Mukherjee v. Davinder Kumar Bajaj, AIR 2001 SC 1696 and Shri Janki Devi Bhagat Trust, Agra v. Ram Swarup Jain, AIR 1995 SC 2482. Accordingly it held that notice of thirty days given by the plaintiff-respondents resulted in valid determination of the tenancy. While deciding issue No. 4, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had not waived the notice by accepting rent and consequently decreed the suit.

5. The sole submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the lease was for manufacturing purpose, consequently, the tenancy was terminable by a six months’ notice as provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act’). He submitted that in view of U.P. Amendment to Section 107 the decisions of the Supreme Court, on which reliance was placed by trial Court, would not apply. He also placed reliance on the rent agreement Paper No. 37-Ga in submitting that the tenancy was a yearly tenancy and thus it could only be terminated by a six months’ notice.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents supported the judgement of the trial Court and submitted that the decisions of the Supreme Court, on which reliance has been placed, would fully apply.

7. The agreement between the parties is dated 8.3.1984. Thereby one hall and open land enclosed by a boundary wall was let out to the revisionist for carrying on business of sheet metal. Under Clause 1, the tenancy was stated to be of one year, during which the rent agreed was Rs. 1100/- per month. Clause 2 of the agreement provided that in case the tenancy continues after one year, rent would be Rs. 2200/- per month and during the third year it would be Rs. 2600/- per month. Clause 12 of the agreement stipulated that the tenancy could be terminated by a three months notice but not before expiry of one year.

8. Under Section 107, a lease of i