Transfer of Property Act-Section 106-"manufacturing purpose" tests/or deciding-Wheat changed into flour by application of labour and machineryWhtther er manufacturing purpose''. A piece of open land belonging to the plaintiff (respondent) was given on lease to the defendant (appellant). The appellant installed a flour mill on that land. He did not use it for any purpose other than running the flour mill. In his suit for eviction of the tenant from the land, the plaintiff claimed that the tenancy was from month to month and that a month's notice given by him to terminate the tenancy was sufficient. The trial court, on the basis of receipts produced by the plaintiff, held that rent was paid on an yearly basis. Upholding the view of the District Judge that the lease was not for a ''manufacturing purpose'', the High Court held that the tenancy was rightly terminated by giving a valid notice. On further appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the tenant that the lease was for a "manufacturing purpose", and that under ~ection 106 of the Transfer of Property Act it could be terminated only by giving six months' notice. Allowing the appeal, HELD : The lease was from year to year and was for a Hmanufacturing purpose", and, therefore, a month's notice was not legal. The suit for ejcctment should have failed on this ground. [1201 H] When the country is making rapid strides in various spheres of industrial activity the term "manufacturing purpose" must be given the most liberal inter· pretation so as to subserve the object of the statute. So interpreted the tests for deciding whether a lease was for a "manufacturing purpose" arc (i) that a certain commodity is produced; (ii) that the process of production would involve either labour or machinery and (iii) that the end product coming into existence after the manufacturing process is complete, should have a different name and should be put to a different use. [1200 B 1201 D-E]
