K.C. Agarwal, J.
1. This is a tenant's writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the fifth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dated 6-1-1976.
2. The premises in dispute belongs to respondent No. 1. An application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was filed by respondent 1 for release of the house in possession of the petitioner on the ground that the same was in a dilapidated condition and the landlord required it for reconstruction after demolition. The tenant resisted the application and denied that the building was in a dilapidated condition. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal preferred by the tenant was also dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, the present writ petition was filed.
3. It, however, appears that in the appeal the tenant had filed an application for amendment of the written statement. The application was allowed, and the following paragraph was permitted to be added as para 14-A in the written statement:
'14-A. That the premises was let out and is being used for the purposes of manufacture and processing and the opposite party is running a flour mill and a cotton ginning machine in the said premises and as such the accommodation in question is exempted from the operation of the Act under Section (2) (d) of the Act.'
4. The submission made by the learned counsel for the tenant was that although the court below permitted the above amendment in the written statement but gave no decision on the saidcontroversy. Accordingly, as no finding was recorded on the amendment, the judgment of the court below was vitiated.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am not satisfied that the judgment of the court below is liable to be reversed on the point suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears true that the merits of the amendment were not examined by the appellate authority, but the same does not taring any change in the result.
6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as the buildings mentioned in Section 2 (1) (d) were exempted from the operation of the Act, the petitioner having taken the premises for the purposes of flour mill and cotton ginning mill, the courts below should have held that the Act being not applicable, the application was liable to be rejected. The relevant provisions of Section 2 are as follows :--
'2. (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to :-- (a) ... ... ... ... (b) ... ... ... ... (c) ............ (d) any building used or intended to be used for any other industrial purpose (that is to say, for the purpose of manufacture, preservation or processing of any goods) or as a cinema or theatre, where the plant and apparatus installed for such purpose in the building is leased out along with the building.'
7. As the proviso to Clause (d) of Section 2 (1) (d) is not relevant for our purposes, I need not mention the same.
8. This provision can be bifurcated into two sentences :
'(i) any building used or intended to be used for any other industrial purpose (that is to say, for the purpose of manufacture, preservation or processing of any goods), or as a cinema or theatre.
(ii) where the plant and apparatus installed for such purpose in the building is leased out along with the building.'
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the landlord was that as the building alone was taken by the petitioner and not any plant and machinery or other apparatus from the landlord, Clause (d) of Section 2 (1) was inapplicable. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, the subsequent sentence in the aforesaid provision requiring leasing out of a building along with plant and apparatus applies to any building taken either for industrial purposes or as a cinema or theatre. The submission appears to be well founded. Section 2 (1) (d) laying down the exemption of the buildings can be applied to a case where a building has been taken along with the plant and apparatus. It is not possible to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement of taking plant and apparatus is applicable to a case where a building is taken for the purposes of running a cinema or theatre. The purpose of this exemption is that the Act will not apply where a building has been leased out along with the plant and apparatus. In such a case, the rights of landlord and tenant would be governed by the general law. But, where, as here, a building alone was taken on lease without any plant or apparatus, the aforesaid clause will not apply. As such, the rights of the parties are to be governed by the provisions of the Act.
10. No other point was pressed before me.
11. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged.