LexALLENBURRY ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD . versus RAMAKRISHNA DALMIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A . • ... B • c D E F G • " •• ~- II • ALLENBURRY. ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD . v. RAMAKRISHNA DALMIA & ORS. · : September 15, 1972 257 [J. M. SHELAT, D. G. PALEKAR, K. K. MATHEW, S. N. DwIVEDI . AND Y. v: CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] Transfer of Property Act-S. 106 and 101-Meaning of the word "1\Janufacturer-Whether lease for reconditioning and repairing vehicles is ntc.nufaclure within s. 106. . ln 1953, an open piece of land in the city of Bombay belonging to Sir Sapurji Bharucha Mills Co. Ltd., was"purchased by Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd. In 1947, the said piece of land was leased to Allenberry & Co. on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800/-. In 1950, the appellant Company was in- corporated for the specific purpose of taking over the business of A!len- berry & Co. In 1954, the appellant Company occupied the said leased land as tenant together with certain vehicles belonging to· the said Allen- berry & Co. at an agreed rent of Rs. 1800/- per mensem. A document of lease _was executed by the -parties for ten_ years. The document \Vas -not, however, registered with the result that it could not be tendered in evidence as one creating a lease. · On January ·20, 1960, the Bharat ·Insurance Co. served a notice upon the appellant Company terminating the· tenancy and called upon the Company to hand over quiet and vacant possession of the said land or part of it .. Later, a suit was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, and after nationalisation, the L.l.C. was substituted for that of the Bharat Insurance Co. as the plaintiff in the said suit. It was con- tended by the appellant that since the tenancy was for manufacturing pUrpo-ieS, one month's- notice terminating the: telnancy was an invalid notice under s. I 06 of the Transfer of Property Act. All. the three Courts bclrnv, however, concurrently held that the tenancy was not satisfactorily proved to be for manufacturing purposes as alleged by the appellant com~any and in the absen 1ce of any proof as to the terms for \vhich it Wai made; the notice terminating the tenancy,' although it was a 'month's notice, was a valid notice and on that footing, decreed the- suit. TYoo · questions were raised before this Court: (I) That the tenancv being for manufacturing purposes, the presumption laid down in S. 106, Trans- fer -Of Property .Act under which .such tenancy has_ to be, regarded as a tenancy -from year ·to year, terminable b}r a• six· months'· noticft and not by a month's notice,. must. apply. (2) The second question Wa3 that in any event, the lease · w$ for manufacturing purposes, 'and therefore, . the saiJ notice .. was not valid., Dismissing the appeal. . ' ' • . ~ -• ' ' ' ' f I .- ' ' ' , ' , ' : '. • : ' HELD : ( 1) The expression "manufacturing purposes"' in S. 106 of the Transfer of Property. Act is used in its popular and dictionary mean- . ing. · ThC' burden 'of proving that the lease \\'as for manufacturing pur· posco lie on the appellant company who claims it to be so. That burden i3 to establish ,that· the exclusive or the dominant purpose _of the lease '!fa• the manufacturing purpose. [2610] C. Mack;rtich,v. Stuart & Co. Ltd.,"A.l.R. 1970 .S.C. 889,..referred to. : ·(iii ~Th~ :Wofd "~~~Ura'~tur~··,. ~ccording: i~ the dictio~ary . meaning, is the making of articles or material by· physical labour or mechanical power: "Manufacture"' implies a 'change, but every change is not manu- 18-L348Sup.C.I./73 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 2 S.C.R. • :-1 . . , : ·1•: ,J' · · .. ' : .. '·!· A facture. a'nd · c\·ery · change' in'· an ' article 1s' 'the ·result o'f' treatnient, labour and manipulation. But something more i'i necessary and th,re ·must be transform1tion; a new and d;fferent article must emerge ha.ving: .a distinctive name; character' 3.nd use.· [261FJ ·: . . / ,; R. v. Wheeler, 2 R. ALD .. 349 rderred 10-:·' . : _; / . .I . i . i . I . f; .- r .' '•; , , (iii) The disputed pr_cmises, \Vere used mostly for Storing the Jispo- sal vehicles together ·with spare parts' etc., acquired along with th.em or purchased from the market, for. repairing and. reconditioning and making the said vehicle fit for resale. There is .. no evidenc(f except the bare word of one witness that parts such as chassis and bodie:i. etc., \verc actually manufactured and replaced .for the old. No books of accourit or log books showing· the work ·carried on the premises or other docu- inen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.