Authored By : B.K. Mukherjea, Blank

B.K. Mukherjea, J.

1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants in a suitcommenced by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the land and buildingdescribed in the schedule to the plaint on the allegation that the defendantsare ticca tenants whose tenancy is determined by a notice to quit. The onlyquestion that was canvassed in the Courts below relates to the sufficiency ofthe notice that was served upon the defendants by the plaintiffs landlords. Thedefendants contention was that as the lease was taken for manufacturingpurposes within the meaning of S. 106, T. P. Act, the lease mast be deemed tobe from year to year, and a six months notice was necessary in terms of thatsection. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contended that the lease was amonthly lease, and hence terminable by fifteen days notice expiring with themonth of the tenancy. Admittedly, the defendants carry on hosiery business inthe disputed premises under the name and style of Jayanti Hosiery Mills. It isfound by both the Courts below that the defendants carry on part of theirmanufacturing business in another premises where sheets or yarn are preparedfrom raw material, and on the premises in dispute, there are knitting andcutting machines where the sheets are worked up into articles of hosiery andmade ready for the market. The sole controversy centres round the point as towhether on these facts which are admitted and found, it can be said that thelease of the premises in question was taken for manufacturing purposes ascontemplated by S. 106, T. P. Act.

2. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides, we areof the opinion that the view taken by the Court of appeal below is wrong. Thelearned Subordinate Judge seems to be of opinion that as the raw materials arenot worked up into hosiery articles in the disputed premises, it cannot be saidthat the lease was taken for manufacturing purposes even though the knittingand cutting were done in that building. We do not think that we can accept thisview as sound. To manufacture, according to its Dictionary meaning, means to"work up materials into forma suitable for use." The word"material" does not necessarily mean the original raw material, for afinished article may have to go through several manufacturing processes beforeit is fit and made ready for the market. What is itself a manufacturedcommodity may constitute a "material" for working it up into adifferent product. Thus, for example, for the tanner, the material would be theraw hide, but the leather itself a manufactured article would constitute thematerial for the shoe-makers business, and we cannot say that the shoe-makersare not manufacturers because they do not work on raw hides.

3. So far as the hosiery manufacture is concerned,undoubtedly articles have got to be made from raw cotton as it is picked fromthe bush. From the cotton, certain yarn or sheets are prepared, and they areknitted into hosiery goods. It is immaterial that the yarn is not produced inthe premises in suit. It is enough to make the house a manufacturing house ifknitting and cutting operations are gone through in this premises, and that isan essential part of the manufacturing business. We are, therefore, of theopinion that the lease was really taken for manufacturing purposes, andconsequently, it must be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable bysix months notice expiring with the end of the year of the tenancy. Theresult, therefore, is that we allow this appeal. We set aside the judgment anddecree of the lower appellate Court and restore and affirm those of theoriginal Court. The defendants will have the costs incurred by them in thelower appellate Court. We make no order as to costs in this Court.

Blank, J.

4. I agree.

.

Joyanti Hosiery Mills and Ors. vs. Upendra Chandra Das andOrs. (30.01.1946 - CALHC)