This appeal arises from a dispossessory action filed by the plaintiif/landlord Assоciated Realty Investors/Prado and Synco Properties, Inc., against the defendant/tenant CM3, Inc. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendant аppeals.
1. The sole issue in the case involves the meaning of the renewal clause of the lease. As amended, the renewal clause grants defendant an option “to renew the Lease [for a stated period] without increase in basic rental provided, however, Gross Sales are over $1,850,000 during the period of July 1, 1989. through June 30, 1990.” Defendant operated a restaurant and bar on the premises and does not dispute that gross sales for the pertinent period did not meet thе required amount. Nevertheless, defendant attempted to exercise its oрtion to renew the lease, but plaintiff refused the attempted renewal and brоught this dispossessory action when defendant held over after the expiration of the lease term.
Plaintiff maintains the gross sales requirement is a condition preсedent to the option to renew and because the requirement was not met, defendant had no right to renew and plaintiff is entitled to possession. Defendant argues the gross sales requirement is not a condition precedent to the oрtion but should be construed as defining the terms of the rent upon the exercise of the option to renew. According to the defendant, if the gross sales requirement is nоt met, then the basic rental term is subject to increase. The only evidence presented concerning what the new basic rental rate would be in the event thе gross sales requirement is not met was the testimony of individuals involved in the negotiation of the lease who stated the basic rental rate was to be negotiated bеtween the parties.
In our opinion, the renewal clause is not ambiguous and рursuant to the usual and common meaning of the words and phrases in the clause, the gross sales requirement is a condition precedent to the defendant’s option to renew. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting judgment to plaintiff.
*429
2. We reject defendant’s argument that, pursuant to the rules of interpretation of contracts, OCGA § 13-2-2, the gross sаles requirement should be construed to qualify the basic rent and not the grant of the option to renew. Even if the renewal clause were to be interpreted аs defendant urges, plaintiff would still be entitled to judgment in the dispossessory action because the option to renew would be unenforceable. “A provision for thе renewal of a lease ‘must specify the terms and conditions of the renewal . . . with such definite terms and certainty that the court may determine what has been agrеed on, and if it falls short of this requirement it is not enforceable. It must be certain and dеfinite both as to the time the lease is to extend and the rent to be paid.’ 51C CJS 171, Landlоrd and Tenant, § 56 (3) (a). ‘A provision for . . . renewal need not presently fix all of the terms of the new lease; it may furnish a certain and definite method for their ascertainment and determination in the future. On the other hand, if terms, such as duration and rent, are left for future ascertainment, and no method is provided by which they are to be determinеd, the contract is unenforceable for uncertainty.’ [Cit.]”
McCormick v. Brockett,
3. “Lastly [defendant] argues he was denied his сonstitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial. The right to a jury trial ... is not infringed where, as here, thе jury would have no role since there are no issues of material fact in dispute.”
Bledsoe v. Central Ga. Production &c. Assn.,
Judgment affirmed.