Satya Prakash & Others vs Ram Autar & Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 2546 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

,0,Q0vkj0
 
lqjf{kr fu.kZ;
 
U;k;d{k la0 25
 

 
f}rh; vihy la0 2577 lu~ 1979
 

 
lR; izdk'k o vU; cuke~ jke vkSrkj o vU;
 

 
ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ 'kf'kdkUr
 

 
	vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh ,y0lh0 JhokLro rFkk foi{khx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh ohj Hkxr flag dq'kokgk ds rdksZa dks lqukA
 
	;g f}rh; vihy O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 dh /kkjk 100 ds vUrxZr Jh ,l0lh0 tSu] izFke vij ftyk tt] cqyUn'kgj }kjk flfoy vihy la0 376 lu~ 1978]  esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkKfIr fnukad 20 vxLr] 1978 ds fo:) ;ksftr dh xbZ gS] vk{ksfir fu.kZ; o vkKfIr }kjk vihy Lohdkj djds v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ewy okn la0 353 lu~ 1973 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkKfIr dks vikLr fd;k x;k gSA 
 
	i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks fnukad 10-01-2018 dks lkjoku fof/kd iz'u ds fcUnq ij lquus ds mijkUr bl U;k;ky; }kjk fuEufyf[kr fof/kd lkjoku iz'u dk l`tu fd;k x;k %&
 
"Whether lease granted to the defendant-appellant is for the purpose of manufacturing and in view of the same notice for 30 days under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is invalid?"
 
	vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdZ izLrqr djus gq, dFku fd;k gS fd izfroknh&vihykFkhZx.k dks fookfnr Hkwfe Vaªd o cDlksa ds fofuekZ.k (Construction) gsrq 05 ekg ds fy, fdjk;s ij nh xbZ Fkh rFkk fdjk;s dh vof/k lekIr gksus ds mijkUr Hkh i{kdkjksa dh ikjLifjd lgefr ls fdjk;snkjh tkjh jghA vihykFkhZx.k mlds fdjk;s dk Hkqxrku fu;fer :i ls oknh & izR;FkhZx.k dks djrs jgsA pwafd iz'uxr [email protected] oknh dks Vaªd o cDlksa ds fofuekZ.k gsrq nh x;h Fkh tks okf"kZd fdjk;s dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS]  fdjk;s ds vkilh lgefr ds vUrxZr ekfld Hkqxrku ds ckotwn fdjk;s dh izd`fr okf"kZd fdjk;s dh gh cuh jgh rFkk og ekg&c&ekg fdjk;s dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrh gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us blh vk/kkj ij  oknh&izR;FkhZx.k dk okn cdk;k fdjk;s ds Hkqxrku gsrq vkKIr fd;k Fkk ijUrq lEifRr gLrkUrj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 106 ds vUrxZr oknhx.k }kjk fdjk;snkjh lekIr djus ds fy, nh xbZ 30 fnuksa dh uksfVl dks xyr o voS/k ekudj fu"dklu gsrq oknhx.k dk okn fujLr dj fn;k FkkA ftlds fo:) oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr  mijksDr vihy dks fo}ku v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; us xyr o voS/k :i ls ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkKfIr ds }kjk Lohdkj djrs gq, oknhx.k ds okn dks fu"dklu gsrq Hkh vkKIr dj fn;k] tks xyr o voS/kkfud gS rFkk vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 
 
	v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; us fdjk;snkjh ds lcU/k esa i{kdkjksa ds e/; lEiUu fdjk;snkjh vuqcU/k ¼izn'kZ 1½ dk lgh o leqfpr ewY;kadu ugha fd;k gS rFkk lEcfU/kr fof/kd fu.kZ;ksa dk Hkh vuqikyu ugha fd;k gSA mDr leLr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr vihy U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; o vkKfIr fof/kd :i ls iks"k.kh; u gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% vihy Lohdkj djds v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky;  }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkKfIr vikLr dh tk; rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkKfIr iquZLFkkfir dh tk;A 
 
	vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr mijksDr rdksZa dk izcy izfrokn djrs gq, izR;FkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd iz'uxr~ Hkwfe vihykFkhZx.k dks Vaªd o cDlksa ds fofuekZ.k gsrq nh xbZ Fkh] ijUrq pw¡fd fdjk;s ij oknhx.k dks igyh ckj Hkwfe ek= 05 ekg ds fy, nh xbZ Fkh rFkk fdjk;s dk Hkqxrku Hkh ekfld vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk r; gqvk FkkA mlds i'pkr~ Hkh fdjk;s dk Hkqxrku ekfld vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gSA mDr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa Hkwfe fdjk;s ij fofuekZ.k gsrq fn;s tkus ds ckotwn fdjk;snkjh dh izd`fr okf"kZd u gksdj ekg&c&ekg fdjk;snkjh dh gh jgsxh rFkk okf"kZd ugha gksxhA D;kasfd fdjk;s dh Hkwfe dHkh Hkh vihykFkhZx.k dks ,d o"kZ ;k mlls vf/kd dh vof/k ds fy, fdjk;s ij nh gh ugha xbZ gSA mDr leLr rF;ksa ds n`f"Vxr v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; us tks fu.kZ; o vkKfIr ikfjr dh gS og iwjh rjg ls lgh o fof/klEer gS rFkk mlesa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gSA
 
	eSaus mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk xaEHkhjrkiwoZd vuq'khyu fd;kA
 
	i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd iz'uxr Hkwfe oknh&izR;FkhZx.k }kjk Vaªd o cDlksa ds fofuekZ.k gsrq fdjk;s ij nh xbZ Fkh rFkk fdjk;s dk Hkqxrku ekfld vk/kkj ij gksuk r; gqvk FkkA iathd`r fdjk;k vuqcU/k ¼izn'kZ la0 1½ esa  ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd fookfnr lEifRr esa dksbZ bekjr vkfn ugha cuh gqbZ gS] og fcydqy [kkyh gS rFkk ml ij U.P. Temporary Contract of Rent and Eviction Act-IIIrd of 1947 ykxw ugha gSA vuqcU/k esa mDr Hkwfe :[email protected]& ekgokj fdjk;s dh nj ls vihykFkhZ dks lUnwd ,oa Vaªd vkfn cukus ds fy, ik¡p ekg gsrq fnukad 01-03-1969 ls 31-07-1968 rd ds fn;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA vuqcU/k dh 'krZ la[;k 5 esa ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd vihykFkhZx.k fookfnr lEifRr ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ LFkk;h fuekZ.k ugha djsaxsA ;fn os viuh lgwfy;r ds fy, ml ij dksbZ NIij ;k Vhu Mkysaxs rks mDr fuekZ.k vLFkkbZ gksxk] mldh dher o ykxr vihykFkhZx.k Lo;a ogu djasxs vkSj fookfnr lEifRr [kkyh djus ij os viuk NIij Vhu o eyck vkfn mBk ys tk;saxsA ,slk u fd;s tkus ds fLFkfr esa fookfnr lEifRr ij fLFkr leLr lkexzh ds Lokeh izR;FkhZx.k gkasxsA i{kdkjksa esa ;g Hkh r; gqvk Fkk fd fdjk;s dk Hkqxrku ekg&c&ekg fd;k tk;xkA blls Li"V gS fd i{kdkjksa dk bjknk iz'uxr Hkwfe dks ekg&c&ekg fdjk;s ij ysuk o nsuk Fkk] u fd okf"kZd fdjk;s ijA 
 
	mDr rF;ksa dks laKku esa ysrs gq, v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; us fdjk;snkjh dks ekg&c&ekg ekuk gS rFkk fdjk;snkjh lekIr djus gsrq oknh  }kjk nh xbZ 30 fnu dh uksfVl dks lgh o oS/k ik;k gSA 
 
	v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; us iz'uxr fu.kZ; ds izLrj 5 ls 9 rd bl izdj.k ds lHkh i{kksa ij foLrkj ls fopkj fd;k gS rFkk lEcfU/kr fof/k fu.kZ;ksa dks laKku esa ysrs gq, ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZx.k dh fdjk;snkjh ekg&c&ekg gS rFkk mls lekIr fd;s tkus ds fy, izR;FkhZ }kjk nh xbZ 30 fnu dh uksfVl ¼izn'kZ&2½ oS/k gSA v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd vf/kfu;e 13 lu~ 1972 bl izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrk gSA lqyHk lUnHkZ gsrq v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; ds mDr lanfHkZr va'k dks ;g¡k m)`r fd;k tk jgk gS %&
 
	"..........................................................................
 
	5. Feeling aggrieved with that finding, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.
 
	6. The defendant-respondent has not challenged the findings of the Court below, which went against him and only three points arise for determination in this appeal. In the first place it has been urged that the provisions of Act XIII of 1972 apply to this case and as such, the defendant could not be ejected. In the second place, it was urged on behalf of the appellants that the purpose of tenancy was not 'manufacture' and as such, thirty days' notice was sufficient to terminate the tenancy. Thirdly, the finding of the learned Munsif regarding the validity of notice was challenged.

7. In para 3 of the plaint, it was clearly alleged that since vacant land had been let out to the defendant, the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 did not apply to the facts of this case. In his written-statement, the defendant admitted this fact. I have not been able to find anything in the written-statement from which it might be inferred that the case of the defendant was that the provisions of Act XIII of 1972 applied to the facts of this case and as such, this plea was not open to the defendant at all. In the second place, the facts clearly show that the provisions of this Act were not applicable. The rent note dated 25th March, 1969 which is admitted by the defendant is Ex-1. It clearly provides that 750 sq. feet of vacant land had been let out to the defendant. It is true that this rent note permitted the defendant to raise temporary structure in the shape of a thach or tin-shed for the sake of his convenience and it was only after the defendant became the tenant that he raised such a temporary structure. This will not, however, convert the land let out to the defendant into a building. The defendant relied upon the case Shiv Govind Tiwary v. Additional District Judge, Kehri (1978 A.W.C. Page 89). The facts of this case were altogether different. In that case, a tin-shed was standing on the spot and was the subject matter of the tenancy. It was, therefore, held that the tin shed which was surrounded by pucca bricks could be used or residential purposes and the provisions of this Act would apply. In the second place from the evidence on record, it is amply clear that the shed raised by the defendant was purely temporary and had been constructed for the sake of his convenience at his own risk. I, therefore, conclude that the provisions of Section 29(a) of Act XIII of 1972 would not apply to the facts of this case.

8. We have then to see as to what was the purpose for which the tenancy had been created. The rent note Ex.1 clearly recites that the land in question had been let out to the defendant for the business of manufacturing boxes and trunks. According to the defendant this amounts to a lease for manufacturing purposes while according to the plaintiffs it was not so. It is also not denied that the defendant manufactured boxes on this land. The short question is whether making boxes would amount to a manufacturing process. I am inclined to agree with the respondent that it was so. The term 'manufacture' came up for elucidation in the case Sri Ishwar Sidhar v. Anup Lal Sharma (A.I.R. 1975 Calcutta page 174), where it was laid down that expression 'manufacture' purposes in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in its popular sense and the word 'manufacture' implies a change and to constitute manufacture there must be such a transformation in the material that a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. It was further laid down in the case Allen Berry Engineers v. R.K. Dalmia (A.I.R. 1973 S.C. Page 425) that by the term 'manufacture' was meant a transformation into a new and different article which may be bought about by physical labour or skill or by mechanical power etc. If we keep this critarian in view, it will be found that making boxes would amount to manufacture ten sheets were converted into boxes by certain processes and a new article which was put to a different use came into being. In this connection, reference may also be made to the case Kali Kumar Sen v. Hari Dass Rai (A.I.R. 1969 Assam and Naga Land page 134), where it was held that making iron boxes amounted to manufacture. I, therefore, hold that the land per rent note Ex. 1 had been let out to the defendant for manufacturing purposes.

9. The third and the most important question, which arises is as to whether the tenancy in such a case could be determined by 30 days' notice as has been done in this case or was a notice of six months necessary for that purpose. The learned Munsif did not consider the terms of the lease Ex. 1. It recites that the vacant land had been let out to the defendant on payment of Rs.33.76 per month as rent for a period of five months ending 31.7.1969. In the next sentence, it is clearly provided that the defendant would remain in possession as a tenant from month to month. The first term of the lease provides that the tenancy of the defendant would be from month to month. It shall commence on the first day of every month according to Gregorian calender and shall end on the last day of that month. It will thus be notices that the tenancy despite being for a manufacturing purpose was from month to month. This was quite permissible in law as Section 106 clearly provides that the tenancy for a manufacturing purpose would be deemed to be from year to year in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary. In this case, there was a clear contract between the parties by which it was agreed that the tenancy of the defendant-tenant would be from month to month. The term of the lease expired on 31.7.1969, but the defendant continued to be in possession and it is admitted to the plaintiffs that rent had been paid upto October, 1972. It was said that the position of the defendant became that of a statutory tenant and according to the learned counsel for the appellants no notice was necessary to terminate his tenancy. Reliance was placed on the case Sardari Lal Vishav Nath v. Pritam Singh (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. Page 1518). In this case, the tenancy came to an end by efflux of time, but the defendant continued to be in possession under the protection of the Rent Restriction Act. In these circumstances, he was found to have become a statutory tenant and no notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary. In my view, the facts of the present case are some what different. Even after the expiry of the period of lease, the defendant continued to be in possession and the plaintiffs received rent for notice had been challenged by the defendant on this ground alone. Since it has been found that the defendant's tenancy could be terminated by serving one months' notice, his tenancy must be deemed to have been validly terminated and he was liable to be ejected........."

pw¡fd v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; }kjk fudkys x;s mijksDr fu"d"kZ i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ds ;Fkksfpr fopkj.k o mlds fo'ys"k.k ij vk/kkfjr gSa] vr% muesa dksbZ fof/kd =qfV o voS/kkfudrk ugha gSA

mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij mDr lUnfHkZr lkjoku fof/kd iz'u dk mRrj udkjkRed :i ls vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:) rFkk izR;FkhZx.k ds i{k esa fn;k tkrk gSA

esjs }kjk n'kkZ, x, mijksDr dkj.kksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g f}rh; vihy cyghu gksus dk dkj.k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS rFkk rnuqlkj fujLr dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkKfIr dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA

rFkkfi vihykFkhZx.k }kjk vius oSdfYid rdksZ esa ;g f}rh; vihy Lohdkj u fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa mls fookfnr lEifRr [kkyh djus gsrq 06 ekg dk le; ekaxs tkus rFkk izR;FkhZx.k }kjk mldk fojks/k u fd;s tkus ds n`f"Vxr ;g izkfo/kkfur fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh vihykFkhZx.k bl fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls 06 ekg esa vFkok mlds iwoZ fookfnr lEifRr dk v/;klu izR;FkhZx.k dks miyC/k djk;saxs] ,slk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa os mDr frfFk ds mijkUr izpfyr cktkj nj vFkkZr dysDVj }kjk fu/kkZfjr {ks=h; nj ls fookfnr lEifRr ds gtsZ ¼fdjk;k½ dk Hkqxrku izR;FkhZx.k dks djasxs rFkk izR;FkhZx.k dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd os U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls izLrqr fu.kZ; o vkKfIr dk fu"iknu djk ldsaA

;g Hkh izkfo/kkfur fd;k tkrk gS fd izR;FkhZx.k eqdnesa esa vihykFkhZx.k }kjk tek fdjk;k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksxsa rFkk bl fo"k; esa muds }kjk izkFkZuki= izLrqr fd;s tkus ij mldk lEcfU/kr U;k;ky; }kjk ;Fkk'kh?kz] fu;ekuqlkj fuLrkj.k fd;k tk;sxkA

fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k bl fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr ds lkFk vfoyEc lEcfU/kr voj U;k;ky; dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vuqikyu gsrq izsf"kr fd;k tk;A

vkns'k fnukad % 13-09-2018

,0oekZ