This is a bill in equity to compel specific performance of a renewal clause in a lease. A decree was entered ordering the defendant to execute a new lease from which the defendant appealed. The evidence is reported and the judge made findings of mаterial facts.
On June 14, 1946, the plaintiff entered into a lease with the Buckminster Oрerating Corporation (hereinafter called Buckminster) of certаin premises in which the plaintiff was to operate a restaurant. The lease, which was to run for a period of ten years from July 1, 1946, provided that the “lessee shall have the right to renew this lease for a further period еnding February 28, 1961, provided, however, that he gives written notice to the lessor of his intention so to do at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of this lease.” The plaintiff gave seasonable notice in writing to Buck-minster of his intentiоn to renew the lease, but Buckminster did not renew and after the expiration of the original lease commenced proceedings to evict the plaintiff. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff commenced this suit for specific performance of the renewal clause. Other faсts will be stated as occasion requires.
The decree was right.
1. The defendant concedes that it received the notice of intent to renew but argues that the plаintiff was not the proper person to give the notice. The leasе provided that “the lessee shall have the right to assign this lease to a corporation to be formed by him, in which corporation he will be the рrincipal stockholder.” Such a corporation was formed and the plaintiff was its principal stockholder. The judge found that no assignment of thе lease was made by the plaintiff to the corporation and ruled that the plaintiff was the proper party to give the notice of intentiоn to renew. The defendant challenges this finding, but we are of opinion
*608
that it wаs supported by the evidence. It is true that at one point the plaintiff testified that he had assigned the lease. But later there was other evidence from the plaintiff tending in the opposite direction. What the plaintiff first sаid was not a binding admission and could be explained by other evidence.
Larson
v.
Boston Elevated Railway,
2. The defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to take effective steps to renew the lease prior to the expiration of the original lease and сannot now obtain specific performance of the renewal clause. This contention lacks merit. The plaintiff gave seasonablе notice to the defendant of his intent to renew and was not required to do more. Upon receipt of the notice it was the defendant’s duty to execute and deliver a new lease for the additional term.
Judkins
v.
Charette,
3. Finally, the defendant urges that the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance because he has violated several covenants in the lease. These contentions are without merit and a discussion of them in detail would serve no useful purрose. It is enough to say that they are not sustained by the judge’s findings. These findings rested on adequate evidence and were not plainly wrong.
Interlocutory decree affirmed.
Final decree affirmed with costs of this appeal.