44 I am, however, not prepared to make a declaratory order in such broad terms. Without venturing into the further issues raised during the hearing of this appeal, given the constraints on this appeal process, reference should be made to the submissions by the Respondent that there has, in any event, been what amounts to a re-entry by the Applicant, as landlord, in the event that the Lease does subsist beyond 22 December 2016. The Applicant responded that the provisions of cl 10(2) of the Lease would prevent the events relied upon by the Respondent as constituting a re-entry - that is, return of the keys and the taking of possession by the Applicant, as landlord - and hence the subsistence of the Lease was not affected. Consequently, much as it is desirable to resolve all matters in controversy between the parties as soon as possible, and my preference would have been to do so in this appeal proceeding, the question whether there has been a re-entry and consequent termination of the Lease after 22 December 2016 is a matter which goes beyond the scope of this appeal and is a matter for resolution by VCAT in its exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the RLA. Consequently, this is an issue which, if it is to be pursued by the Applicant, should be the subject of a remittal order to VCAT for determination by a differently constituted tribunal. It will be a matter for that tribunal to decide whether the question can be said to arise in the present VCAT proceedings or whether, if the matter is to be agitated, fresh proceedings need to be issued in VCAT. I am, however, prepared to make a declaration that the term of the Lease subsisted after 22 December 2016 and that, according to its terms, that term is due to expire on 1 July 2017 or its earlier termination in accordance with law and that, subject to further order or determination by VCAT or otherwise, the Respondent, as tenant, is required to meet all of its obligations under the Lease.