Manufacturing lease depends on the dominant purpose at grant; mixed residential and business use is not enough.

A lease is treated as one for manufacturing purposes under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act only where manufacture is the dominant object at the time of grant. Mixed purposes such as dwelling, setting up a press, or ordinary business do not by themselves convert the tenancy into a manufacturing lease, and later use for manufacture does not change the original character of the grant. The text also notes that bona fide requirement for personal occupation and rebuilding is supported where the landlords have no other house in Calcutta and the surrounding evidence shows a genuine need for possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lease was for manufacturing purposes within the meaning of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (ii) whether the plaintiffs bona fide required the premises for their own use and occupation and for building and rebuilding.

Issue (i): Whether the lease was for manufacturing purposes within the meaning of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The lease described mixed purposes, namely dwelling, setting up a press, and ordinary business purposes. A lease is for manufacturing purposes only when its very object and inception are impressed with that purpose. Printing simpliciter is not necessarily manufacture, and a press set up for ordinary business and dwelling use does not by itself amount to a manufacturing lease. The fact that the premises may later be used for manufacture does not alter the nature of the original grant.

Conclusion: The lease was not for manufacturing purposes and the issue was answered in the negative.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs bona fide required the premises for their own use and occupation and for building and rebuilding.

Analysis: On the evidence, the plaintiffs had no other house in Calcutta, and the property allotted to them in the partition proceedings justified their need for possession. The evidence supported a genuine and honest requirement for both personal occupation and redevelopment.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs bona fide required the premises for their own use and occupation and for building and rebuilding and the issue was answered in the affirmative.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the premises with mesne profits and costs, as the defence based on manufacturing lease failed and the requirement for occupation and rebuilding was established.

Ratio Decidendi: A lease is a lease for manufacturing purposes only if manufacture is the dominant purpose at the time of grant; mixed or ancillary uses such as dwelling, ordinary business, or setting up a press do not by themselves convert it into a manufacturing lease.

---