JUDGMENT R. P. Singh, J. 1. Since the facts of both the writ petitions are common and the parties are also the same and hence they are disposed of by one common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 10346 of 1987 has been filed by the landlords and owners of cinema building known as 'Prem Talkies' while writ petition no. 12263 of 1987 has been filed by the lessees of the cinema building in whose favour Brij Behari Lal Tandon and others executed a registered lease on 30-12-1986 letting out the cinema building equipped with projector, machines and fixtures for exhibiting films. By means of these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 6-3-1987 declaring vacancy as well as notice dated 9-3-1987 inviting applications for allotment of the accommodation in dispute i.e., Prem Talkies, situate in Mohalla Sahadapura, Maunath Bhanjan, district Azamgarh and further prayed for quashing of the proceedings under Act 13 of 1972 in respect of the accommodation in dispute. The short question involved in these writ petitions is whether the cinema building in dispute i.e., Prem Talkies stood excluded and exempt from the operation of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act. The facts of the case are that the petitioners in writ petition no. 10346 of 1987 who were landlords and owners of the cinema building, had originally let out this building without installing it with furniture, apparatus etc. to certain tenants against whom they filed suit no. 1 of 1983. The suit was decreed and in pursuance of the execution of the decree the petitioners obtained possession of the building on 30-9-84. After the petitioners got possession of the building, they intended to use the building as cinema house and let out the plant and apparatus installed therein for running the cinema along with the building. With that intention in view the petitioners entered into an agreement with the respondents 3 to 5, Madan Lal Mehrotra, Shyara Lal Mehrotra and Ratan Mehrotra on February 5, 1986 for leasing out the aforesaid cinema building in their favour. With that intention in view the petitioners entered into an agreement with the respondents 3 to 5, Madan Lal Mehrotra, Shyara Lal Mehrotra and Ratan Mehrotra on February 5, 1986 for leasing out the aforesaid cinema building in their favour. In pursuance of their intention the petitioners have averred that they fitted the apparatus and plant in the cinema building in accordance with the requirements of Cinematograph Act and executed a registered lease deed dated 30th December, 1986 in favour of the lessees, Madan Lal Mehrotra and others letting out the cinema building fully equipped with projector, machines, fixtures and furnitures and under the terms of the aforesaid lease deed the cinema building along with the cinema equipments specified in the lease deed was leased out in favour of the lessees for a period of five years with an option of renewal for a further period of two years on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-. In pursuance of the lease deed the lessees deposited Rs. 1,30,000/- as advance in favour of the petitioners and Rs. 50,000/- was paid as security. The petitioners thus delivered possession of the entire cinema building along with plant and machinery installed therein to the lessees who continued in possession thereof. In the meantime, respondent no. 2, Satya Narain Pandey, filed an application for allotment of the cinema building alleging that there was vacancy in the building upon which a report was called for and it is averred that a report was obtained behind the back of the petitioners without issuing any notice to the petitioners and vacancy was declared on 6-3-87 and 19-3-87 was fixed for allotment. The petitioner coming to know of the proceedings for allotment, immediately made an inspection of the record and filed objection accompanied by an affidavit that the report about vacancy was made behind the back of the petitioners and that the cinema building along with the apparatus and machinery fitted in it had already been leased out in favour of respondents 3 to 5 who had already applied for obtaining licence for exhibiting films on 8-1-87 which is pending orders and hence no proceedings for allotment of the building should be taken under the Act. The petitioners also moved an application that an inspection of the building in dispute may be made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer himself or through some senior gazetted officer upon which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ordered an inspection to be made by the SDM, Maunath Bhanjan. The SDM, Maunath Bhanjan made an inspection on 28-4-87 and submitted a report that the cinema building was fitted with projector, exhaust fan, electric fans, 589 sheets, diesel generating-set etc. and the lessees were found to be in possession of the cinema building let out to them fully equipped with apparatus and machinery etc. It is further averred in the petition that on the application of the lessees to obtain licence for exhibiting films Entertainment Inspector had already submitted a report upon which the Additional District Magistrate (E) Azamgarh had passed an order that formalities may be got completed for the issue of the licence under the Cinematograph Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order declaring vacancy and inviting applications for allotment of the building on the ground that the cinema building in question is excluded from the operation of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 as the building is used and intended to be used as a cinema building by the lessees to whom the building had been leased out along with the plant and apparatus duly installed for such purpose in the building as contemplated by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 and hence the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to pass orders of declaring vacancy and inviting applications for allotment under the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 strenuously contended that the agreement dated 5-2-86 and the registered lease deed dated 13th December, 1986 are collusive documents to defeat the provisions of Act 13 of 1972 and further contended that the building being got vacated by the petitioners in execution of the decree against tenants, the landlords cannot be allowed to exclude the building from the operation of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 by installing machinery, projector, furniture and fixtures and leasing out the same to the respondents 3 to 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the vacancy having occurred on 30-10-84 after the previous tenants were ejected in execution of the decree against them, the respondent no. 2 could apply for allotment of the same which could be duly allotted to him by the respondent no. 1 under the Act. In order to examine whether the building is exempt from the operation of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, it would be necessary to examine the material placed before the Court by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me the agreement to lease dated 5th February, 1986 executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 and paragraph 3 of the same provides that the first party i.e., the petitioners agree to lease the lessees, the second party, the said cinema building fully equipped with projector, machines, screen, fixture and furnitures in full running condition for a period of five years with an option of two years on the same terms and conditions. In pursuance of this agreement a registered lease was executed by the petitioners on 30th December. 1986 and condition no. 3 of the same provides that the first party is letting out on lease to the second party the said cinema building equipped with projector, screen, fixtures and furnitures in full running condition as per details given in the foot of the deed: for a period of 'five years. The relevant portion of section 2 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 reads as follows : "2. Exemption from operation of the Act.- Nothing in this Act shall apply to- (a)......... (b)......... (c)......... The relevant portion of section 2 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 reads as follows : "2. Exemption from operation of the Act.- 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 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." A reading of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 thus shows that in order to be excluded from the purview of the provisions of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, the building may be used or intended to be used as a cinema building and the second ingredient to be fulfilled is that plant and apparatus installed for such purpose in the building must be leased out along with the building. In the present case, the registered lease deed executed by the petitioners on 30th December, 1986 shows that the cinema building along with the projector, machines, screen, fixtures and furnitures in full running condition was leased out for five years and the petitioners handed over possession of the cinema building fully equipped in running condition in conformity with the Cinematograph Act and hence on 30th December, 1986 the building stood excluded and exempt from the operation of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972. The impugned order declaring vacancy has been passed on 6-3-87 while the order inviting applications for allotment is dated 9-3-87 and prior to this date the cinema building fully equipped with plant and apparatus installed for the purpose of running the cinema in the building had already been leased out along with building and hence the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed to declare vacancy and invite applications for allotment of the building under the Act as it is clearly exempt from operation of the Act by virtue of its falling under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that the building being originally under the purview of the Act and having fallen vacant after the previous tenant was ejected in execution of a decree against him by the petitioners on 30-9-84, the building in question clearly falls within the purview of the Act and the vacancy has validly been declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and that the petitioners could not be permitted to exclude the building from the operation of the Act by subsequently fixing machines, projectors, screen and other apparatus in the cinema building and leasing out the same along with the building in favour of respondents 3 to 5. I find no merits in this submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. There is nothing to debar the petitioner from fixing the apparatus, plant, machinery and screen in the cinema building and leasing out the same along with the building in order to earn more profits out of his property. I have not been shown any provision in U. P. Act 13 of 1972 to prohibit the petitioners from fixing the fixtures in the cinema hall and leasing out the same along with the building. In absence of any such prohibition, the petitioner was fully entitled to use and improve his property in accordance with law and after having equipped the cinema building with machinery, apparatus and fixtures, and having executed a registered lease deed on 30th December, 1986, the cinema building clearly goes out of the purview of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 being exempt from its operation under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that even though the building originally may have been within the purview of the Act but after the cinema building was equipped with the plant and apparatus installed for the purpose of using the same for exhibiting films and same having been leased out along with building after execution of the registered lease deed dated 30th December, 1986, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer respondent no. 1 had no jurisdiction to proceed to pass order under U. P. Act 13 of 1972. 1 had no jurisdiction to proceed to pass order under U. P. Act 13 of 1972. He has invited my attention to a case Rama Mandir v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kashipur, reported in 1977 (U. P.) Rent Control Cases 129 where it was laid down that after the roof of the shop fell down and the tenant vacated it, the said accommodation could not be treated to be a building within the meaning of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 and hence no allotment orders could be passed regarding the same. The facts of the case were that the shop was in tenancy of one Raja Ram. The shop fell down and Raja Ram vacated the same. The landlord, petitioner in the case, in order to reconstruct the shop got a plan sanctioned but in the meantime the shop was allotted to respondent no. 3 who occupied the demolished shop and started reconstructing it himself. Against the order of allotting the shop to respondent no. 3 the landlord filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed against which he filed writ petition. It was held by this Court that the shop having fallen down the said accommodation for the purpose of passing a fresh allotment order could not be treated to be a building within the meaning of Act 13 of 1972 and the order of allotment was quashed. A similar view was taken in the case of Sanaullah v. VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Meerut, reported in 1979 ARC 138 that a construction which was a building when it was vacated but if subsequently it was pulled down to ground, it no more remained a building as defined under U. P. Act 13 of 1972 and hence the power of allotment could not be exercised in respect of the same. It is settled rule of interpretation of Statute that when power is given under statute to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Hence when the building in dispute went out of the purview of the Act and stood excluded and exempt from the operation of the Act, the power of allotment cannot be exercised in respect of such premises. Hence when the building in dispute went out of the purview of the Act and stood excluded and exempt from the operation of the Act, the power of allotment cannot be exercised in respect of such premises. In view of the decisions cited above, it is clear that even though it may originally have been a building within the meaning of Act 13 of 1972 but subsequently after the execution of the registered lease deed dated 30th December, 1986 leasing out the building along with fixtures, plant and apparatus installed in the cinema building, the building in question was exempt from the operation of the Act, having fallen under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. As regards the other contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the agreement dated 5-2-1986 are collusive to defeat the provisions of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 and the validity of the lease can be gone into by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who is competent to declare the same as invalid, I find no merits in this submission. The lease deed is a registered deed and the validity of the same cannot be adjudged by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. By means of this registered lease deed, the petitioners having let out the entire fixtures, machines, projector, furniture along with cinema building to the lessees and having transferred the possession of the same in their favour who also having applied for licence for exhibiting films under the Cinematograph Act and having also been granted a licence by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh vide his order dated 22-6-87, it is clear that the building is clearly exempt from the operation of the U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972 and hence the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to proceed under the Act and pass an order declaring vacancy or inviting applications for allotment and consequential orders. 7. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 6-3-87 declaring vacancy and 9-3-87 inviting applications for allotment of the building under the Act are set aside and the respondent, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Azamgarh, is directed not to proceed with the proceedings of allotment under U. P. Act 13 of 1972 with regard to cinema building in disputes. The impugned orders dated 6-3-87 declaring vacancy and 9-3-87 inviting applications for allotment of the building under the Act are set aside and the respondent, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Azamgarh, is directed not to proceed with the proceedings of allotment under U. P. Act 13 of 1972 with regard to cinema building in disputes. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. 8. A copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days. Petitions allowed.