Rupeswari Debi vs Lokenath Hosiery Mills on 31 August, 1961
10. On the evidence before me, however, there is hardly anything to indicate that there was such knowledge on the part of the landlady and, in that view, the above decision would have no application. I would, however, further point out that the observations, relied on by Mr. Dasgupta from the judgment of my learned brother, should not be read apart from their context and, if they are read in their true context, it will be clear that his Lordship was there referring to the conduct of the parties, really as a piece of evidence, supporting the view that the purpose of the tenancy in question was manufacture. This will be further confirmed by the observations, made by my learned brother in the preceding page, where he was referring to an admission of the plaintiffs witness that the lease there was taken for factory purposes and was rejecting his belated and laboured explanation, trying to contradict the same. In any view, as I have said above the said decision would have no application to the instant case. I would accordingly, reject this second submission of Mr. Dasgupta.