has sought for upholding of the same 17.6 It is urged that none of the terms of the lease having been violated by the lessee, the lease ought not to have been determined by the State and on the above grounds, the respondents sought for dismissal of the appeal by defending the impugned judgment. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 18. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, we are of the considered view that following points arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the impugned order of the High Court requires to be affirmed or reversed? 2. What Order? RE: POINT NO.1 19. The lease agreement came to be executed in favour of original lessee on 29.09.1905 for 30 years and after expiry on 29.09.1935 it came to be renewed on 22.01.1944 for a period of 30 years with effect from 26/09/1935. The said lease expired on 26/09/1965 and none of the lessees took any steps for renewal till 22/12/1972. On 23/12/1972, one of the lessees namely Late Nalininath Mitra preferred an application for