1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.79/2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 02.03.2007. Heard Shri A.M.Ghare, learned Counsel for the appellants. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel argued that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act falls short of the period required by law inasmuch as the tenanted premises were being occupied by the appellants for manufacturing purpose. The period of notice could not have been less than six months. The Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the appellants carried on the business of repairing the watches and as the appellants had no defence, they raised the defence that they were manufacturing the watches. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are based on material on record. No substantial question of 2 law is involved the the Second Appeal. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw