enables the Collector to determine the lease and accordingly the lease has been determined based on the report of the Tahsildar and the admission of the lessee regarding the violation of clause 9 in his letter dated: 06.10.1975. 16.4 It is further urged that suit of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation as the suit was filed in the year 1986 i.e., 10 years after the order of the Collector taking possession of the suit land. 16.5 It is further contended that High Court erred in proceeding on the basis of Clause 9 and 15 of the lease agreement having not been violated by plaintiffs though facts depicted otherwise. 16.6 It is further contended that resumption of the lease was on the ground of violation of Clause 9 of the lease agreement ''due to dilapidated condition of the building'' 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