JUDGMENT A I. Verma and D. S. Sinha, JJ. - The petitioner was a member of a Co-operative Society which was established with the object of founding small and other cottage industries by its members. In pursuance of the said object the Society purchased some land and thereafter leased it out to its members. A lease was granted to the petitioner also by the Society in respect of a piece of land lying within plot Nos. 6 and 7. The lease stipulated that the petitioner shall establish an industry specified therein within two years. It appears that the petitioner did not establish the industry nor go into production even after two years whereupon a notice dated 25-4-1977 was issued to him by the Administrator of the Society. It is the validity of this notice which is under challenge under this petition. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the claim of the petitioner has been negatived. The case set up in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner had no legitimate reason for not having established the industry for which the land in question was leased to him. The land was, therefore, liable to be surrendered to the Society in terms of the lease. The impugned notice was issued in the lawful exercise of the rights of the lessor under that lease. 3. Sri G. D. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action by the respondent in asking the petitioner to surrender the possession over the leased land is manifestly unsustainable in law inasmuch as the lease does not have any forfeiture clause so as to enable the Society to take possession of the land demised to the petitioner. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner we find no merit in the above contention. In the petition, the relevant forfeiture clause of the lease has not been quoted. That clause has, however, been quoted in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The clause provides : "3. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner we find no merit in the above contention. In the petition, the relevant forfeiture clause of the lease has not been quoted. That clause has, however, been quoted in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The clause provides : "3. AND IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THESE PRESENTS AS FOLLOWS : (a) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained in there shall have been in the opinion of the Co-op-Society (whose decision shall be final and binding) any breach by the sub-lessee or by any persons claiming through or under him by any one covenants or conditions herein before contained and on his part to be observed and performed and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this sub-clause if the sub-lessee transfers, relinquishes mortgages, sublets or assigns the demised premises without the previous consent in writing of the Co- operative Society as hereinbefore provided or fails to commence and complete the buildings in the time and manner hereinbefore provided or fails to establish the industry specified above within the time fixed by the Co-op. Society or if the amount due to.t e Co-op. Society as development charges hereby reserved or the instalment of premium hereinbefore mentioned under Cl. 2(a) or any part thereof shall be in arrears and unpaid for a period of one calandar month after becoming due (whether the same shall have been demanded or not) or if the sub-lessee or the persons in whom the title hereby created shall be vested, shall be adjudged insolvent, it shall be lawful for the Co-op. Society (without prejudice to any other right of action of t e Co-op. Society in respect of any breach of this deed) to re-enter upon the demised premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and thereupon this demised shall absolutely cease and determine and the sub- lessee shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever." (Emphasis added). 5. The above clause, in our opinion, provides a complete answer to the petitioner's contention. 5. The above clause, in our opinion, provides a complete answer to the petitioner's contention. It specifically states that if the lessee fails to establish the industry specified in the lease within the time fixed by the Co- operative Society, it shall be lawful for the Co-operative Society (without prejudice to any other rights to the Society in respect of the breach of this deed) to re-enter the demised premises or any part thereof in the name or the whole and thereupon the demise shall absolutely cease and determine. It is thus apparent that the impugned action initiated by the respondent against the petitioner falls squarely within the aforesaid clause. It was hence perfectly lawful for the Society to re-enter upon the demised premises and to issue a notice in that behalf asking the petitioner to surrender the land in question. 6. Sri G. D. Srivastava further submitted that the language used in the lease, namely, that, it shall be lawful for the Co-operative Society merely vests a discretion in the Society to invoke this clause if it so desires. It does not compel the Society in each case to re-enter upon the demised premises treating the lease as having ceased. 7. We are not impressed by this argument. The clause quoted above undoubtedly arms the Society with the power to re-enter upon the demised premises or any part thereof if the sub-lessee commits any breach of the terms of the lease. If, therefore, the Society chooses to exercise this right under the lease, this Court can afford no relief to the petitioner in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. There is thus no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with costs. The interim orders are vacated.