A party seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case due to non-payment of rent and lack of notice.

Judgment :

(V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.)

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 06.07.2021 in A.S.No.26 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 07.09.2017 in O.S.No.273 of 1997, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein are defendant Nos.1 to 8 in O.S.No.273 of 1997, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle.

During the pendency of the appeal, the 2^nd defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.9 to 14.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.273 of 1997, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, with a prayer for specific performance directing the defendants to execute lease deed for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.04.1994 at quarterly rent of Rs.300/- and alternatively, for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to occupy the suit schedule premises for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.04.1994 on payment of quarterly rent of Rs.300/- to the defendants and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and representatives from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.26 of 2017, on the file of the X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle. The learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.273 of 1997, is as follows:

The plaintiff is Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited and it is carrying business of petroleum products and for such purpose, the plaintiff took plat schedule property measuring 48,000 sq. feet from Vedula China Kasipathi Chenulu, Yegneswara Chenulu and Eswarudu (1^st defendant), for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.04.1964 at quarterly rent of Rs.300/-. Later, the plaintiff constructed various structures in the plaint schedule carrying on business of petroleum products from the said property. Subsequently, as per the provisions, the right, title and interest of Burma Shell Company in respect of its undertaking in India was taken over and vested upon the Central Government. Covenant No.3(iii) of lease deed deals with renewal of lease on written request of the lessee made one month before the expiration of the lease period, lessors shall renew the lease for further 30 years on same terms. The plaintiff exercised its right of option for renewal of lease for further period of 30 years commencing from 01.04.1994, by sending letter, dated 17.09.1993. The plaintiff is regularly sending quarterly rent of Rs.300/- and the same were being received by the lessors and their legal heirs up to 31.03.1994. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform the terms and conditions of lease deed and also willing to pay all the accumulated rents as stated therein. The lessors –China Kasipati Chenulu and Yegneswara Chenulu died intestate leaving behind defendants except 1^st defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to renue the lease besides by virtue of Section 5(2) and Section 87(3) r/w Section 11 of the Act, 1976 for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.04.1994 and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7. During the pendency of the suit, 1