Judgment:
Bellie, J.
1. The defendants against whom the suit for eviction has been decreed by the trial Court (first Additional Subordinate Judge Erode) and confirmed by the first appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Erode) are the appellants in this second appeal.
2. The only point that has been raised here is that the notice of termination of tenancy sent by the plaintiff is not valid in law and therefore the suit filed on the basis of that termination notice is not maintainable and therefore the decree passed is not sustainable. It is argued that the subject matter of lease is a rice mill and therefore the lease was for manufacturing purposes and that being the case, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the lease shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year and it is terminable by six months notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy but Exhibit A.2 notice terminating the tenancy given in this case is not such a notice, and it has been given treating the tenancy as monthly one. It may be stated here that this plea has not been taken either in the trial Court or in the first appellate Court. Even at the time of the admission of the second appeal this plea has not been taken. But however a petition has been filed for permission to raise this point as additional ground and this being purely a question of law, this petition has been allowed.
3. It is hot in dispute that the subject matter of lease is rice mill. However it is disputed that the lease is for manufacturing purposes. In P.N. Venkatesa Chettiar v. Annamalai Industrial Corporation (in liquidation) rep. by its Liquidator Narayanaswami : (1984)2MLJ92 , Sengottuvelan, J. has held that lease of a rice mill is not for manufacturing purposes. I am in respectful agreement with the learned Judge. In the rice mill paddy is hulled i.e., the husk is removed from the rice. I do not think this can be said to be manufacturing process.
4. On the appellant defendant's side a decision in Idmdas v. Amant Ramachandra Phodke (dead) by legal representative : [1982]1SCR1197 was cited wherein it has been held that lease for running a flour mill is for manufacturing purpose. In that decision the tests for determining whether a lease is granted for purposes of manufacturing process has been given as follows:
(i) That it must be proved that a certain commodity was produced;
(ii) That the process of production must involve either labour or machinery;
(iii) That the said product which comes into existence after the manufacturing process is complete, should have a different use. In other words, the commodity should be so transferred to lose its original character.
It is noteworthy that as per test No. (iii) the end product which comes into existence after the manufacturing process should be put to a different use. It cannot be said that paddy is put to one use and the rice is put to a different use. As said above, only husk is removed from the rice so that rice can be put to use. Therefore, I do not think that the Supreme Court ruling is of any assistance to the appellant -- defendants.
4. Thus I find no merit in the second appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed with costs.