Dominant intention test determines whether a foundry settlement is a protected tenancy or a business arrangement outside rent control.

The deed was construed by applying the dominant intention test to determine whether it created a protected tenancy of premises or a settlement of the iron foundry business with machinery and fixtures. Reading the instrument as a whole, including its references to the business, fittings, fixtures, and continued operation of the foundry, the court treated the transaction as a business settlement rather than a lease within the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, so rent-control protection did not apply. A separate eviction ground based on default in rent was also unavailable because it was not pleaded, no issue was framed, and the statutory requirements were not established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the settlement in question was a lease of premises protected by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, or a settlement of the iron foundry business with machinery and fixtures; (ii) Whether eviction could be sustained on the ground of default in payment of rent.

Issue (i): Whether the settlement in question was a lease of premises protected by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, or a settlement of the iron foundry business with machinery and fixtures.

Analysis: The controlling test was the dominant intention of the parties, to be gathered from the terms of the settlement. The deed described the transaction as an agreement for five years, referred to the karbar or business of the iron foundry, provided for transfer and return of fittings and fixtures, dealt with continued carrying on of the business, and excluded the tank and banks from the settlement. On a proper construction, the subject of the settlement was the business of running the foundry with its machinery and appurtenances, not a tenancy of premises within the statutory definition.

Conclusion: The settlement was not a premises tenancy under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and the respondents were entitled to recover possession on that footing.

Issue (ii): Whether eviction could be sustained on the ground of default in payment of rent.

Analysis: The plaint did not plead default as a ground for eviction, no issue was framed on that basis, and the record did not establish compliance with the statutory requirements for treating the appellant as a defaulter. A decree of eviction could not therefore be founded on alleged default in rent payment.

Conclusion: Eviction could not validly rest on the ground of default in payment of rent.

Final Conclusion: The decisive question was the true character of the settlement, and on that construction the appellant held the foundry business rather than protected premises; the decree for recovery of possession was therefore sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: To determine whether a transaction falls within rent-control protection, the court must apply the dominant intention test by construing the deed as a whole; where the substance of the transaction is a lease of business with machinery and fixtures rather than a tenancy of premises, rent-control protection does not apply.

---