The ambiguity of a contract requires adjudication to determine the intention of the parties, and compliance with court orders is essential. Additionally, the protection of settled possession is crucial in property disputes.

1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. These two appeals are being disposed of by a common order since these arose out of the impugned common order passed by the learned Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Mapusa, on 20.1.2016 by which, she had granted temporary injunction, inter alia directing the respondent to pay arrears of monthly compensation to the appellant within a period of six months and further to pay regular monthly compensation.

3. The parties shall be referred to as “plaintiff” and “defendant” for the sake of convenience.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts germane for disposal of these two appeals, can be summarised as follows:

The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office, as shown in the cause title of the plaint. The plaintiff and the defendant 3 entered into two Lease Deeds dated 24.5.2012, which are registered at Sr. Nos.286/2012 and 287/2012 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Mapusa by which, the properties described in the plaint have been granted on lease to the plaintiff by the defendant on annual rent of Rs.58,60,896/- and Rs.41,32,100/- respectively. The defendant claims to be an owner of the suit property, which comprises residential building, identified as (a) Building No. 6 bearing House Nos.355/1/6/GF/1, 355/1-5/FF/2, 355/1-6/SF/3 and 355/1-6/TF/4 comprising of ground plus three upper floors converted to 14 rooms (b) building no.7 bearing House No.355/1-7/GF/1, 355/1-7/SF/3 and 355/1-7/TF/4 comprising of ground plus three upper floors converted into 14 rooms, (c) Building No.8 bearing House No.355/1-/GF/1, 355/1- 8/FF/2 and 355/1-8/SF/3 and 355/1-8/TF/4, converted to 15 rooms alongwith a swimming pool land lawns in survey no.278/1 of village Candolim situated at Candolim and (ii) a part of the bungalow bearing H.No.313 comprising of ground floor alongwith lawn around in survey no.27/7 of village Candolim, situated at Candolim within the limits of the village Panchayat of Candolim.

5. There is a stipulation in the Lease Deed that the work of repairs and renovation would incur an approximate cost of Rs.1,00,00,000/- which was to be borne by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, contends that the cost of repairs and 4 renovation exceeded to the tune of Rs.2,27,81,216/- which has been duly acknowledged by the defendant. It was also agreed upon between the parties as per Lease Deed that the plaintiff would compensate the defendant with an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per month towards rent for the first year and second year by deducting an amount incurred for renovation. For the third year, the rent shall be Rs.5,50,000/- for the fourth year it would be Rs.6,00,000/- and for the fifth and last year, it would be Rs.6,50,000/-. There would be no deduction for the fifth year. These terms have been incorporated in Clause 3 of the Lease Deed. An amount of Rs.15,00,000/- has been granted to the defendant-lessor by the plaintiff which was to be repaid to the plaintiff on termination of the Lease Deed and thereafter handing over vacant possession of the demise premises to the defendant. There is one more clause in the Lease Deed i.e. the plaintiff would have a right of pre-emption in the event of the defendant-lessor intends to sale the suit premises/restaurants, which would be excluding the part of bungalow bearing no.313 and Lawn at Survey no.27/6 at Candolim. Admittedly, the lease period was of five years ending on 31.5.2017, which may be subsequently renewed at the option of lessee, on such terms and conditions mutually agreed between the parties.

6. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he has incurred expenses and spent huge amount for the purpose of facilitating and obtaining permissions from different Government Authorities. Having done so, the plaintiff started hotel and restaurant operations in the demised premises and has engaged about 60 employees, for the purpose of running his business. The plaintiff had also