The right to evict a lessee for lease violations stands when proper notice is given, consistent with the Transfer of Property Act.

1. This appeal has come to this Bench on a reference by a single Judge. The appellant Kshiroda Sundari Bhattacharyya was defendant No. 2 in the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen. Bhupendra Mohan Deb and Nripendra Mohan Deb who are arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 to the present appeal, filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit land.
The plaintiffs claimed to be the sole proprietors of the Tea Estate known as Krishna Gobinda Horish Chandra Tea Estate comprising the suit land with all tea plants, factory, sheds, bungalow and all other houses and structures standing thereon. By executing a registered lease dated 24-5-1950 Srimati Lilarani Chanda impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit, took the aforesaid tea estate on lease from the plaintiffs and entered into possession thereof.
Under clause 19 of the lease on breach of certain conditions, the lessors were entitled to re - enter the leased land. A notice was served by plaintiffs on defendant No. 1 Srimali Lila Rani Chanda determining the lease and giving her three months' time to remedy the breach. But the defendant No. 1 lessee failed to remedy the breach and thus the present suit had been brought for ejectment of the lessee.
Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement in which she contested the suit and further alleged that the suit was not maintainable without impleading defendant No. 2 Srimati Kshiroda Sundari Bhattacharyya the appellant as a party. It was also alleged in the written statement that the lease was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiffs and that the defendant No. 1 spent a large amount in setting up machineries on misrepresentation of the plantation area by the plaintiffs.
The validity of the notice was also challenged. Subsequently the appellant was made a party to the suit and a separate written statement was filed by her. She raised the same points as were raised by defendant No. 1. She further alleged that on the basis of the total area of the grant and the area of the plantation as given in the lease, she entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1 to take up the management of the garden and also to advance a loan of Rs. 20,000/- on mortgage of the garden and that in pursuance thereof she took up management of the garden and purchased machineries worth Rs. 20,000/-.
After working for some time she realised that the yield was not as much as it was represented to her due to the fact that the plantation area was much less than what was represented in the lease. On a survey made she found that the area of the grant was only 145 acres as against 388 acres and the plantation area was only 61. 32 acres as against 135.25 acres as given in the lease. On these facts it was alleged by the defendant No. 2 that the suit must be dismissed.

2. Both the courts held in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The courts below found that the lessee committed breach of the conditions given in paragraph 19 of the lease and thus plaintiffs were entitled to re - enter the suit land after determining the lease. The court below further held that the notice was valid and that the defendant No. 2 had no right to resist the suit. The present appeal has been filed by defendant No. 2 only. Defendant No. 1 - the lessee acquiesced in the judgment of the Munsif and filed no appeal in the court below also.

3. The appellant before us has canvassed mainly four points, - (i) that under the terms of the lease the plaintiff No. 1 Bhupendra Mohan Deb himself having been appointed superintendent of the tea estate, the plaintiffs were estopped from setting up the plea of gross mismanagement, (ii) that the forfeiture was waived by conduct of the plaintiffs, (iii) that the n