JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—This is tenant’s revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court’s Act. The only point mooted in this revision is that whether the premises in suit is not governed by U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, herein after referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in view of Section 2 (1) (d) thereof. 2. SCC Suit No. 37 of 1984 was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party No. 2 for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of the defendant/applicant from premises No. 123/36, (Old), New Number being 123/32 situate in Industrial Area, Suresh Bagh, Kanpur. The suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff is the son of landlord of the industrial plot, wherein an industrial shed had been constructed. A portion of said plot/premises measuring 4500 sq feet constructed area and 10,000 sq. feet open land was leased out to the defendant/tenant for a period of 12 years under the lease agreement dated 15th November, 1977 w.e.f. 1st December, 1971. The lease period having expired the tenant is liable for eviction. The defendant/tenant has refused to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises, hence the suit. It was also pleaded that the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the lease has come to end by afflux of time and the provisions of said Act are not applicable in view of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. 3. The suit was contested on a number of pleas including that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. However, the lease agreement dated 15th November, 1977 and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not disputed. The plea that the entire arrears of rent etc. has been deposited under Section 20 (4) of the said Act and the defendant/tenant is not liable for eviction, was also raised. 4. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 1986 decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and eviction of the defendant/tenant. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been filed. 5. The revision was heard by Hon’ble Mr. 4. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 1986 decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and eviction of the defendant/tenant. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been filed. 5. The revision was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Sapru, J. His Lordship after hearing the learned counsel for the parties remitted the following issue to the trial court to return the finding :- “Whether the plant or apparatus was leased out along with the building to the tenant/revisionist under the lease deed between the parties”. 6. The above issue has been decided by the trial court by its order dated 1st June, 1987 and it has been held that that the defendant/tenant took on lease the disputed building along with the plant and apparatus under the lease deed Ext 1 (paper No. 45/c).It follows that provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are not attracted. An objection has been filed on behalf of the tenant against the aforesaid finding on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to it by the trial court while deciding the issue remitted to it as its counsel was out of country and other counsel could not appear as a short notice of hearing was given by the trial court. The matter remained pending for a considerable period of time and was ultimately listed before me as in the mean time the Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Sapru, J has retired. 7. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Shyamal Narain for the applicant and Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party. 8. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in view of pleadings of the parties and material on record, the finding of the court below on the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 can not be sustained. Elaborating the argument he submitted that on true and correct interpretation of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, it is essential that the plant and apparatus should also be leased out along with the building to attract the exemption Clause 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Elaborating the argument he submitted that on true and correct interpretation of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, it is essential that the plant and apparatus should also be leased out along with the building to attract the exemption Clause 2 (1) (d) of the Act. In Contra, Sri A.K. Gupta, Advocate submitted that the finding recorded by the trial court is finding of fact and this court should not disturb the said finding, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court’s Act. It is not in dispute between the parties that the premises in question is situate in industrial area and the plaintiff had raised various constructions, as detailed in the lease deed. 9. In para 2 of the plaint it has been pleaded that the plaintiff granted lease of an approximately 10,000 sq feet to the defendant for a fixed term of 12 years. The monthly rent was fixed Rs. 950/- and Rs. 1020/- was fixed for fixtures and fittings and thus the total rent was Rs. 1970/- per month for the purpose of setting up a paper and allied products factory establishment. The factory building duly constructed consists of one composite shed ad measuring 65 feet x 75 feet and syrup room, stores, administrative office workers quarters and latrines as per the plant annexed with the lease deed. In para 5 of the plaint it has been stated that the aforesaid premises being industrial factory premises and lease since was granted for a fixed period under the registered lease deed, the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the same is exempted from the purview of the aforesaid Act. There is no bar or restriction in filing the suit for eviction of the defendants. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the above pleadings is short of requirements of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. He also invited the attention of the Court towards the statement of Sri Ashok Kumar son of plaintiff, who was examined as PW1 who has stated that when the premises was leased out, there was syrup room and machines were fixed. He in cross examination has admitted that the lease deed does not contain description of any plant and machinery. He also invited the attention of the Court towards the statement of Sri Ashok Kumar son of plaintiff, who was examined as PW1 who has stated that when the premises was leased out, there was syrup room and machines were fixed. He in cross examination has admitted that the lease deed does not contain description of any plant and machinery. The sole witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff also failed to disclose the particulars of machinery, if any, let out to the defendant/tenant. 10. I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The only relevant para as pointed by the learned counsel for the parties is para 2 of the plaint. Its bare perusal would clearly show that the it does not disclose that any plant or machinery was let out to the defendant/tenant at the time of the execution of the lease deed. Only this much has been stated in para 2 of the plaint that some fixtures and fittings were let out on rent of Rs. 1020/- per month. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/landlord could not show any thing from the plaint, which may indicate that any plant or machinery was also let out to the defendant/tenant at the time of letting out of the premises in question in the pleadings. However, he submitted that since the syrup room was let out and the entire plant and machines were installed in the syrup room, this court should draw inference that the plant and machinery were also let out. According to him ‘’syrup room’ itself is indicative of the fact of letting of plant and machineries. It is difficult to accept the said submission. It was for the plaintiff to establish that the plant and machinery were installed in the syrup room or the plant and machinery collectively called or understood between the parties as syrup room and was actually let out. Significantly the lease deed is the basis of the suit and the said document is admitted by both the parties. Even in the lease deed there is no mention that any plant or machinery was let out. A fair reading of the lease deed shows only this much that one shed and other constructions measuring approximately 4500/- sq. feet and open area measuring 10,000 sq. feet situate in the industrial area was let out. Even in the lease deed there is no mention that any plant or machinery was let out. A fair reading of the lease deed shows only this much that one shed and other constructions measuring approximately 4500/- sq. feet and open area measuring 10,000 sq. feet situate in the industrial area was let out. The deed is completely silent about letting out of any machinery or plants. Apart from the above a bare reading of Clause 1 of the lease deed supports the contention of the defendant/tenant that the only premises was let out. In para 1 of the lease deed the leased out premises has been described as “demise premises” which consists of constructed and open area only. In para 3 of the lease deed only this much has been stated that in addition to the monthly rent, the lessee shall also pay to lessor during the 12 years term of the lease, a monthly sum of Rs. 300/- in consideration of various sundry amenities, facilities and privileges including the use of furnitures etc. provided by the lesssor to the lessee. Had any plant or machinery let out the factum of such letting should have been found place in the lease deed, in as much as the land lord has taken care to mention the payment of Rs. 300/- for consideration towards various amenities, provided by him including the use of furniture etc. 11. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act is reproduced below : “2. Exemption from Operation of the Act : - (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following namely (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 :” 12. The aforesaid clause has been the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in Smt. Mangi Devi Vs. Prescribed Authority 1985 (i) ARC 290. It has been held that Section 2 (1) (d) will not apply to a case where a building bereft of apparatus or plant was let out but it will apply only when a building was let out along with the plant and apparatus. Prescribed Authority 1985 (i) ARC 290. It has been held that Section 2 (1) (d) will not apply to a case where a building bereft of apparatus or plant was let out but it will apply only when a building was let out along with the plant and apparatus. The aforesaid Section can be bifurcated in 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. 13. For the applicability of the aforesaid section, it is essential that the plant and apparatus installed in a building should be leased out along with the building. The learned counsel for the landlord could not suggest any other interpretation to the aforesaid section. He could submit only this much on the strength of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Swaroop Vs. Har Pyari ARC 1981 545 that the findings recorded by the court below being finding of fact this court should not entertain the revision. The said argument proceeds on the assumption that the findings recorded by the trial court are findings of fact, which is not so. The question is whether on the facts as found, the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) is attracted or not. In the absence of any pleadings as also the material on record to show that the plant and machinery was also let out, the findings of the court below being illegal is liable to be set aside. 14. Great emphasis was laid by him that in his statement the PW1 has stated that the machinery was also installed therein when the premises was leased out. On the strength of the said portion of the statement an attempt was made by him to persuade this court to hold that the findings recorded by the trial court is finding of fact. It is difficult to accept the said submission, in as much as there is no pleading that the machinery or the plant was also let out along with the building in the plant. The said portion of the statement being beyond the pleadings can not be taken into account. It is difficult to accept the said submission, in as much as there is no pleading that the machinery or the plant was also let out along with the building in the plant. The said portion of the statement being beyond the pleadings can not be taken into account. The evidentiary value the said portion of the statement should be judged in the light of the cross examination and other attending circumstances of the case. Indisputably the lease deed does not contain any details of any machinery and plant if so let out. The witness could not give the details of any machinery or plant in his cross examination. 15. The plaintiff/landlord was claiming exemption from the operation of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and in such a case it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Swaroop Rai Vs. Leelawati (1980) 3 SCC 452 , the burden lay upon the landlord who is claiming exemption that the building in question being the new construction is exempted from the operation of the Act. The aforesaid case was decided with reference to Section 2 (2) of the Act and in my view the said principle is equally valid for a case under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the finding of the court below recorded on the issue remitted by this court can not be sustained. The court below proceeded to record the finding on the statement of PW1 Ashok Kumar and held as nothing was asked by the defendant/tenant in the cross examination of the plaintiff, the said statement remained intact in evidence. The statement of witness has to be judged along with other material on record. No analytical analysis was made by the Trial Judge by considering the statement of Ashok Kumar PW1 in this regard. He failed to look into the pleadings of the parties as also the lease deed. 16. In view of the above, the judgment and decree of the trial court can not be sustained. 17. Before parting with this case it is apt to note one argument of the learned counsel for the land lord. Sri Gupta submitted that the premises was let out way back in the year 1971 for a period of 12 years and there has been tremendous rise in the prices of immovable properties. 17. Before parting with this case it is apt to note one argument of the learned counsel for the land lord. Sri Gupta submitted that the premises was let out way back in the year 1971 for a period of 12 years and there has been tremendous rise in the prices of immovable properties. The property in question is situated in the industrial area and at the present market value it would fetch rent, according to him more than 50,000/- per month. Mr. Gupta is right in his submission that there has been tremendous rise in the price of immovable properties and the fact that the property in question is in industrial area is also an important factor in this regard. Be that as it may, it is not possible for this Court to grant any relief by way of enhancement of rent in these proceedings. It is open to the plaintiff/landlord to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum if so advised. 18. In view of above discussion, the revision is allowed and judgment and decree so far as it relates to eviction of the applicant is concerned is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. Revision Allowed. ———