Jafarbhai Amirbhai (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs Shantabai Gangadhar Kamle (Deceased)

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The appellants, legal representatives of the original defendant-tenant, challenged concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting a decree for eviction and possession in favour of the respondent-plaintiff (original landlord) in respect of a leasehold open plot admeasuring 3500 sq. ft. out of Survey No. 88, Ramtek, District Nagpur, originally leased for the purpose of running a sawmill at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-.

The Trial Court held, relying on Mohammad Shahariyar Baig v. R.P. Bhal (1987 (2) Civil L.J. 419) and Bacchulal Shahu v. Geeta Timber Co. (AIR 1996 Orissa 3), that a lease for a sawmill does not constitute a lease for manufacturing purposes within the meaning of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and accordingly a 15-day notice (and not a six-month notice) was sufficient to validly terminate the monthly tenancy. The defendant's admission of the lease in earlier litigation (RCS No. 251/1986) and certified copies of the lease deeds (Exh. 58 and 59) were accepted as proof of the lease terms. The First Appellate Court upheld these findings on re-appreciation of evidence.

The Second Appeal was preferred before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, raising questions concerning the nature of the lease, sufficiency of notice, and admissibility of the unregistered lease deed. The judgment deals with these questions of law arising from the concurrent decrees of the subordinate courts.

Catchwords: second appeal eviction lease monthly tenancy sawmill manufacturing purpose Transfer of Property Act Section 106 termination of tenancy notice period unregistered lease deed admissibility concurrent findings landlord-tenant