P. C. CHERIYAN versus BARFI DEVI

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 16-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P. C. CHERIYAN 
v. 
BARFI DEVI 
October 16, 1979 
[R. S. SARKARfA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
961 
Transfer of Property Act 1882 (4 of 1882) S. 106-Lease of Premises for 
carrying on business of retreading of tyres-Whether lease for 'manufacturing 
purposes' within S. 106. 
Words and Pflrases-'Manufacturing purposes'-Meaning of-Transfer of 
Property Act 1882, S. 106. 
The plaintiff (respondent) let out the accommodation in dispute at a rent 
of Rs. 850/- per annum to the defendant (appeIIant) who was doing the busi· 
ness of retreading of tyres in the said premises. The defendant defaulted in 
payment of rent, and the plaintiff sent one 
month's notice terminating the 
tenancy .. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of 
rent and ejectment against the defendant. 
The suit was contested, on the ground that the premises in. dispute had been 
let out for manufacturing Purposes and in view of s. 106, Transfer of Property 
Act:" the lease could be terminated by the landlady only by six months nof..,e 
1 
expiring with the end of the year of tenancy and since the plaintiff had served 
only 30 days' notice, the. same was invalid and ineffective to terminate 
the 
. tenancy. 
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit 
for arrears of rent as well as for ejectment which was confirmed by the High 
Court. All the Courts below held that the retreading of tyres, is not a 'manu-
facturing purpose' and, therefore, 30 days' notice given by the plaintiff to the-
defendant for terminating his tenancy was valid. 
_, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
ID the defendant's appeal to this Court on the question whether a lease of 
F 
· a premises for carrying on the business of retreading of tyres is a lease for 
'n1anufacturing purposes~ within the contemplation of s. 186 Transfer of Pro-
perty Act. 
HELD": I. The Courts below were right in holding that the. lease in the 
present case was not for 'manufacturing purposes', and the tenancy -had been 
rightly terminated by thiity days' notice. 
[966 HJ 
2. The expression. 'manufacturing purposes' 
has not been defined in 
the 
Transfer of Property Act. It has therefore, to be 
construed in its 
popular 
sense. 'Manufac.ture' implies a change but every change is not manufacture. 
Something more is necessary. There 
must be 
transformation; a new and 
different atticle must emerge 
haying a distincti"Te name, char<icter. or use. 
[964 A-BJ 
3. The broad test for determining whether a process is a manufacturing pro-
c'ess, is whether it brings out a complete transformatio~ for the old components, 
7-743SCX/79 
G 
I 
H 
/ 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
so as to produce a commercially different article or commodity. 
This: question 
is largely one of fact. 
[966 F] 
As a result of retreading, an old tyre does not become a different. entity, nor 
acquires a new identity. The retreading process does not cause the dd tyre 
to lose its original character, nor brings into being a commercially d~titrct or 
different entity. 
The old tyre retains its basic structure, origin31 ch::.tractec and 
B 
identity, as a tyre, although retreading improves its performance and serviee-
ability. 
Retreading of old tyres is just like resoling of old shoes. Just ili re~ 
soling of old shoes does not produce a commercially different entity, so from 
retreading no ne\\r· or distinct article emerges. 
[966 E-G] 
4. Definitions of 'manufacture' given in other enactments, such as, in 
the 
Factories Act er the Excise Act should not be blindly applied while illterpre-
C 
tin2 the expression 'manufacturing purposes' in s. 106 of the Transfer of Pro-
perty Act, because in some ether enactments such as the ExCise A.ct,. the term 
'manufacture' has been given an extended meaning by including in it 'repairs', 
also. 
[967 A-Bl 
D 
E 
G 
South Bihar Sugar Mills v. Union of India, [1968] 3 SCR 21, referred to. 
Ft·deral Co1nrnissio1ier of Taxation v. Jack Zinader Pro[Jrietary Ltd., (1948-
49) 78 C.L.R. 336; distinguished. 
Allenbury Engineers Ltd. v. Ramakrishna Dalmia and Ors., [1973] 2 S.C.R. 
251; applied. 
CIVIL ArPELUTE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1722 
of 
1969. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
11-12-1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 969/ 
67. 
M. M. Abdul Khader, R. Salis, Vijay K. Pandita and E. C. Agar-
wala for the Appellant. 
Jitendra Sharma and V. P. Clumdluiry for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.