Chitambaresh, J.

The tenant of a non residential premises seeks renewal of lease by specific performance notwithstanding that the covenant as regards the renewal of lease is uncertain and ambiguous.

2. The tenanted premises is the ground floor of a two storied building having plinth area of 5000 sq. ft. on the Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ernakulam belonging to the appellants and occupied by the respondent bank. The premises was first demised to the respondent by Ext.B1 lease deed (Document No.5029/1981) and the lease was being renewed from time to time and Ext.A1 lease deed (Document No.1097/2003) was the last one executed. Ext.A1 lease deed executed on 5.3.2003 was given retrospective operation with effect from 1.4.2002 as per the terms thereof and the period of the lease expired 10 years after on 31.03.2012. The rent payable was Rs. 51,000/- per month and the relevant clause in Ext.A1 lease deed relied on in support of the plea for renewal of lease is extracted below:

"1. The period fixed for the lease is 10 (Ten) years commencing from 01.04.2002.

2. The option for continuing the lease must be exercised by the lessee within one month before the expiry of the original term of 10 (Ten) years. If for any reason the lessee fails to notify its option to the lessors it shall be presumed that the bank has exercised its option to remain in possession of the premises and the Lessors agree to execute a fresh lease deed." (emphasis supplied)

3. The respondent even before the expiry of the period of lease issued Ext.A2 letter dated 25.8.2011 exercising its option to remain in possession agreeing to execute a fresh lease deed. The same was replied to by Ext.A3 letter dated 8.11.2011 issued by the first appellant expressing willingness to execute a fresh lease deed for a period of three years. It was however indicated therein that the rent fixed for the earlier period was meagre and that the same is liable to be enhanced on comparable standards. The respondent thereupon issued Ext.B3 letter dated 21.2.2012 stating that the renewal of the lease for a period of three years only is not acceptable. The respondent emphasised that the lease has to be renewed preferably for a period of 15 years and that there can be a maximum enhancement of 25% in the rental. The letter also cautioned that the negotiation for renewal of the lease has to be concluded at the earliest as sanction for rent with retrospective effect is difficult.

4. The failure to execute a fresh lease deed on revised terms by the respondent prompted the appellants to have a rethinking on the question of renewal of the lease. The first appellant thereafter issued Ext.A4 letter dated 14.3.2012 calling upon the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises. The letter explicitly stated that the respondent will cease to be a tenant from 1.4.2012 onwards and that the covenants in Ext.A1 lease deed will not also be enforceable. The appellants have subsequently instituted proceedings for eviction of the respondent under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Controller has allowed eviction upholding the bonafide need for own occupation set up by the appellants and the issue is pending in appeal with the Appellate Authority. The finding if any on Ext.A1 lease deed by the Rent Controller of limited jurisdiction is insignificant particularly when the order of eviction has not become final. The respondent has in the meanwhile filed the present suit for specific performance of Ext.A1 lease deed in relation to the clause for renewal of lease. The court below has by the impugned judgment decreed the suit directing the appellants to execute a lease deed in favour of the respondent. The same has been directed to be executed on the same terms as contained in Ext.A1 agreement except ofcourse the clause relating to renewal at the expense of the respondent within 30 days. The appellants challenge the decree of the court below on the ground that the terms as