( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) PERUSED the record.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the decree of the first appellate court, whereby allowing the defendants appeal, the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff has been reversed, the plaintiff-appellant has now approached this Court in second appeal seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the decree passed by the first appellate court and restoration of the decree passed by the trial court.

( 4 ) A learned single Judge had, vide the order dated 16. 9. 1996, framed the following substantial questions of law which were found to have arisen in this appeal for consideration :

(i) Whether, the appellate court came to a proper finding regarding the application of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the facts of the present case. (ii) Whether, on the facts of the case, it could have been inferred that the lease was for manufacturing purpose.

( 5 ) THE facts in brief shorn of detail and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass.

( 6 ) THE suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed on the allegations, inter alia, that the defendant Tara Chand was a tenant