and not on the ground of violation of Clause 9 of the lease agreement which speaks about ''Sanitary Improvements''. The letter of one of 11the lessee is a clear admission that the building was in a dilapidated condition and the said document has not been considered by the High Court. 16.7 It is contended that the resumption case was initiated due to violation of clause 9 and 19 of the Manual, 1919 and not on the ground that the land was required for any public purpose as contemplated under Rule 28(5) of the Manual,1919 and Rule 28 had no application to the case on hand. 16.8 It is contended that right of the lessee under Clause 18 of the lease agreement can only be considered if the lessee had duly observed and performed all the conditions of the lease, and in the instant case no rent was paid, municipal taxes were not paid, the structures were in a dilapidated condition and outsiders were in possession of the property which were in blatant violation of the terms of the lease. As such