Manufacturing tenancy under section 106 requires dominant manufacturing use, not merely incidental repair or fabrication activities.

To attract the six months' notice rule under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenant had to prove that manufacturing was the dominant purpose of the lease. The expression "manufacturing purposes" was given its ordinary meaning of making or fabricating a new and different article by labour or mechanical power. On the evidence, the premises were mainly used for storage, repair, reconditioning and sale of disposal vehicles, with any manufacture of spare parts only incidental. The tenancy was therefore not established as a manufacturing tenancy, and the month's notice terminating it was not invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenancy was for manufacturing purposes so as to attract the six months' notice rule under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and whether the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid.

Analysis: The burden lay on the tenant to establish that the lease was for manufacturing purposes. The expression was construed in its ordinary sense as involving making or fabricating articles or materials by labour or mechanical power so that a new and different article emerges. On the evidence, the premises were principally used for storage, repair, reconditioning and sale of disposal vehicles. Even if some spare parts were manufactured or replaced, that activity was only incidental and not the dominant purpose of the lease. Since the dominant purpose was not manufacturing, the tenancy could not be treated as one attracting the special rule under section 106.

Conclusion: The tenancy was not proved to be for manufacturing purposes, and the month's notice was not invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: To invoke section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the footing of a manufacturing tenancy, the tenant must prove that manufacturing was the dominant purpose of the lease, not merely an incidental activity.

---