Contractual notice overrides statutory notice in a fixed-term manufacturing lease, and possession claim was not barred by tenancy splitting.

A suit for possession was not defeated by alleged splitting of tenancy where the written lease and pleadings showed that the premises claimed matched the portion actually demised. The objection that eviction was sought from only part of the demised premises failed because no impermissible fragmentation of the tenancy was established. A lease used for manufacturing purposes did not require six months' notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 where it was for a fixed term of eleven months and the parties had expressly agreed to termination on two months' notice. The contractual notice governed, and the notice terminating the tenancy was valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the landlord's suit for possession was bad for splitting a tenancy by seeking eviction from only a part of the demised premises; (ii) Whether the tenancy, though used for manufacturing purposes, was validly terminated without six months' notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Issue (i): Whether the landlord's suit for possession was bad for splitting a tenancy by seeking eviction from only a part of the demised premises?

Analysis: The written lease/licence documents and the pleadings showed that the premises claimed in the suit corresponded to the portion actually let out. The portion later shown in green on the plan had been scored off in the documents and was not part of the tenancy. The finding that the tenant had been let into possession of the entire property was inconsistent with the pleadings and the written instruments. The suit was, therefore, not one for recovery of only a part of the demised premises and no impermissible splitting of tenancy was established.

Conclusion: The objection based on splitting of tenancy failed and the suit for possession was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenancy, though used for manufacturing purposes, was validly terminated without six months' notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

Analysis: A lease for manufacturing purposes ordinarily attracts six months' notice only in the absence of a contract to the contrary and when it is a lease from year to year. Here the tenancy was created for a period of eleven months and the parties expressly agreed that either side could terminate it by giving two months' notice. That contractual stipulation displaced the default rule under section 106. The tenancy was, therefore, terminable in accordance with the contract and did not require six months' notice.

Conclusion: The notice terminating the tenancy was valid and effective.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's reversal was set aside, the trial court's decree for possession was restored, and the landlord's right to recover the demised premises was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a lease, even if used for manufacturing purposes, is for a fixed term less than one year and contains an express contractual mode of termination, the contractual notice governs and the statutory six months' notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not required; a suit for possession is not defeated if it is based on the premises actually demised and not on an impermissible fragmentation of the tenancy.

---