Manufacturing lease under property law requires statutory notice where milling transforms wheat into distinct flour.

A lease of land used for a flour mill was held to be a lease for manufacturing purposes because wheat was processed into flour, a distinct commodity with a different name, character and use. Applying the settled test of manufacture, the Court treated the transformation of the original commodity into a new end product as sufficient to attract section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. As a result, the shorter one-month notice was invalid; the lease required the statutory notice applicable to manufacturing leases, and the suit for ejectment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the lease of land on which a flour mill was installed was a lease for manufacturing purposes so as to attract the six months' notice requirement under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: The tenancy was found to be from year to year on the basis of the receipts and not a month-to-month tenancy. The decisive question was whether the land was put to a manufacturing use. The Court applied the settled meaning of "manufacturing purposes" and the accepted tests that manufacture requires production of a commodity through labour or machinery and that the end product must emerge with a different name, character, or use. On the admitted facts, wheat was processed in a flour mill into flour, a product fit for human consumption and distinct in name and use from wheat. Those facts satisfied the requirements of manufacture.

Conclusion: The lease was for manufacturing purposes, and a one-month notice was invalid. The suit for ejectment failed and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the leased premises are used for a process that transforms the original commodity into a distinct end product with a different name, character, or use, the lease is for manufacturing purposes within section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and can be terminated only by the statutory notice applicable to such a lease.

---