The main legal point established is that the covenant for renewal of lease, if running with the land, is enforceable against the assignees of the lessee, and the waiver of rights by the lessor can prevent the defendants from relying on condoned breaches to resist the claim for renewal.

Wadegaonkar—This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for renewal of a lease given by Laxmichand Jainarayan to the Hingoli Press Company Limited. The lease was in respect of a piece of land situated in the town of Akola and was to run for 30 years from 11th November 1887. A deed of lease was actually executed by the lessor in favour of the lessee on 19--7--1892 (Exhibit P-1). The rent payable was Rs. 75-0-0 per annum and it was provided by clause 2 of the deed, of lease that it should be paid in advance for each year at the beginning of that year i.e., on the 11th November. In clause 7 provision was made for renewal of the lease for a further period of 30 years on the expiry of the term of the lease. That clause has been translated thus : If the company desires to take the said land on lease for a further period of 30 years, it should intimate Laxmichand Jainarayan at his Khamgaon shop by a notice its desire to that effect as soon as the aforesaid period of lease for 30 years expires and if such notice is received and provided the company has during the 30 years acted as it ought to have done according to the conditions in this agreement of lease, Laxmichand should execute a fresh agreement of lease for a further period of 30 years as desired by the company, on the conditions of this agreement of lease.

2. In accordance with this condition Messrs. Bruel and Company who were the managers of the Hingoli Press Company gave a notice on 9--2--1917 at Laxmichand's Khamgaon shop intimating the desire of the Company to obtain a fresh lease for a further term of 30 years on the expiry of the old lease but as Laxmichand failed to execute a fresh lease, the present suit was instituted on 13--11--1920.

3. Laxmichand the original lessor died sometime before the institution of this suit and on his death, the site covered by the lease fell on a partition between the members of the joint family of which Laxmichand was the manager during his lifetime, to the share of defendant No. 1 who sold the said site to defendant No. 2 by a duly registered sale deed dated 13--10--1920 (Exhibit-P-5). The Hingoli Press Company's lease-hold rights in the site in dispute were also purchased by the plaintiffs under a Sale deed dated 12--6--1920 (Exhibit P-4) and hence plaintiffs brought this suit for renewal of the lease against the defendants.

4. Defendants pleaded that payment of rent on the due date during the term of the lease was a condition precedent to the renewal of the lease and that as the said condition had been broken by the lessee almost every year after 1892--93 plaintiffs were not entitled to claim renewal of the lease. They further pleaded that as defendant No. 2 was a minor and as he had purchased the site covered by the lease without notice of the condition of renewal the said condition could not be enforced against him.

5. Plaintiffs in reply pleaded that the understanding between the lessor and the lessee was that the rent for each year should be paid when the lessor or his agent would demand the same at Akola ; that according to this arrangement, it was paid to the lessor when he or his agent came to demand it at Akola ; that, moreover, the lessor having accepted late payments of rent and condoned the default, if any, it was not open to the defendant to plead such default as an answer to their (plaintiffs') claim for renewal of the lease. They urged that defendant No, 2 had purchased the site in dispute with full notice of the lease and the conditions contained therein and that he was therefore bound to renew the lease.

6. Both the Courts below held that there was an understanding between the lessor and the lessee that rent should be paid at, Akola when the lessor or somebody on his behalf went there from Khamgaon to demand it ; that the late payment of rent by the lessee was due to failure on the part of the lessor to send his man to Akola to receive payment and that the lessee was not responsible for late