Arshpreet Kaur bought a bakery business located in a strip mall in the west end of the city. The previous owner owed the landlord $4,500.00 in overdue rent. Arshpreet Kaur, the landlord, and the seller of the business agreed that Arshpreet Kaur was not responsible for the arrears of rent owed by the previous owner. The landlord was unwilling to enter into a lease longer than 18 months in case Arshpreet Kaur was not successful in turning the business around.
Arshpreet Kaur's efforts over the 18 months paid off, and the bakery became extremely successful. When it came time to renew the lease, the landlord offered a three-year term but would sign only if Arshpreet Kaur were to be responsible for the previous tenant's rent arrears. There were no appropriate rental properties available in the west end, which would require Arshpreet Kaur to relocate her bakery to the other side of the city where his bakery was not known. With one week to go until the current lease expired, Arshpreet Kaur, under protest, signed the lease agreeing to be responsible for the previous tenant's arrears of $4,500.00. When the landlord demanded payment of the arrears, Arshpreet Kaur refused to pay, telling him to look somewhere else for his dough.  

Questions:
1. On what grounds could the landlord bring a legal action against Arshpreet Kaur for the $4,500.00 arrears owed by the previous tenant?
2. Briefly explain whether Arshpreet Kaur has a defence if sued by the landlord for the outstanding arrears of $4,500.00.
3. In your opinion, if Arshpreet Kaur is paying the monthly rental fee but does not pay the arrears should the landlord be able to terminate the lease?