JUDGMENT Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. - Heard Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for the Appellant-Applicant, and Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. This Second Appeal takes an exception to the ''Judgment and Decree'' dated 10th November 2016 passed by the District Judge-18, Pune in Civil Appeal No.946 of 2012, which was preferred against the ''Judgment and Decree'' passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, on 5th July 2004 in Special Civil Suit No.674 of 1989. 3. The said Suit was filed by the Appellant herein for specific performance of the ''Agreement to Sell'' dated 8th August 1984. The Trial Court was, after considering the evidence and pleadings on record, pleased to decree the Suit; however, when the Respondents herein preferred the Civil Appeal before the District Court, the District Court was pleased to allow the said Appeal, answering specifically three issues against the Appellant. 4. The first issue pertains to the readiness and willingness on the part of the Appellant to perform his part of the contract; the second issue is, whether the Appellant proved that the ''Agreement to Sell'' dated 8th August 1984 is a concluded contract; and the third issue is, whether the Appellant proved that the Respondents had failed to perform their part of the contract. 5. The findings to these three issues are arrived at by the first Appellate Court in the negative; firstly on the count that, as per the ''Agreement to Sell'' executed between the parties, the responsibility to get these lands exempted from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, at his own cost, was on the Appellant and he has, however, not done a single act towards performing his part of the obligation and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that, Appellant was ready and willing all along to perform his part of the contract. 6. As regards the point relating to the concluded contract, the first Appellate Court has also considered the factual aspects of the case and found that, the parties were not at ad idem, when they entered into the contract. Moreover, considering that the land is totally admeasuring 21,520 sq.ft. or 2,046.19 sq.mtrs.; out of which, the land admeasuring 497 sq.ft. or 46.19 sq.mtrs. was considered to be the excess land, therefore, it was not clear, as per the description of the land, as to which land was agreed to be sold. Moreover, considering that the land is totally admeasuring 21,520 sq.ft. or 2,046.19 sq.mtrs.; out of which, the land admeasuring 497 sq.ft. or 46.19 sq.mtrs. was considered to be the excess land, therefore, it was not clear, as per the description of the land, as to which land was agreed to be sold. There was dispute relating to the ''Agreement to Sell'', as to whether the construction of the Row House was also the part and parcel of the said ''Agreement to Sell''. The first Appellate Court was pleased to answer both these points in the negative and was further pleased to hold that, when the Appellant has failed to perform his part of the contract of getting the requisite exemption from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short, "the ULC Act"), he cannot be entitled to get the relief of specific performance of the contract. 7. While challenging this Judgment of the first Appellate Court, the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant is that, the first Appellate Court has misconstrued or misread the ''Agreement to Sell'' in question and also the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It is urged that, Section 20 of the ULC Act deals with the exemption from the provisions of the ULC Act in respect of excess land; whereas, Section 26 thereof deals with the transfer of the vacant land within the ceiling limit, for which also the permission of the ''Competent Authority'' is required. 8. Here in the case, according to learned counsel for the Appellant, the first Appellate Court has not properly considered the provisions of Section 26 of the ULC Act, which requires the Vendor, namely, the Respondents herein, to seek such permission and only the exemption was to be obtained by the Purchaser-Appellant; but, so far as permission for transfer; especially the land within the ceiling limit, it was for the Respondents to obtain the same and hence, according to him, unless the Respondents had discharged their burden, it was not proper on the part of the first Appellate Court to hold that, the Appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 9. 9. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Appellant, it would be necessary to consider the relevant Clauses in the ''Agreement to Sell'' dated 8th August 1984. They read as follows :- WHEREAS the said plot of land being situated in the Pune Urban Agglomeration, the Vendors are entitled to hold only an area of 21,520 sq.ft. or 2,000 sq.mtrs. under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the remaining land of 497 sq.ft. or 46.19 sq.mtrs. being held as excess land; AND WHEREAS the Vendors offered to sell to the Purchaser and the Purchaser agreed to purchase from the Vendors the said plot of land for a consideration to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten only) per square foot of actual area sold to the Purchaser and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT :- 1. Agreement to Sell :- SUBJECT to the prior permission of the Competent Authority, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, being obtained in the behalf by the Vendors, the Vendors shall sell to the Purchaser and the Purchaser shall purchase from the Vendor all and singular the said plot 111, Viman Nagar Colony, Lohagaon, admeasuring 22,017 sq.ft. or 2,046.19 sq.mtrs. and more fully described in the schedule hereunder written at and for a consideration to be calculated at Rs. 10/-(Rupees Ten only) per square foot of the actual area of the land sold, free from all encumbrances. 3. Exception for Excess Land :- The parties have agreed that the Purchaser shall take all necessary steps required for obtaining exemption under the provision of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, under his costs. The Vendors undertake and agree to give all active co-operations to the Purchaser for obtaining the said exemption and to sign all necessary papers and documents required for the same. 5. Permission under ULC Act :- Before completion of the Conveyance, the Vendors shall obtain necessary permission of the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, for conveyance of the said land to the Purchaser. The Purchaser shall co-operate and give all necessary assistance required to obtain the said permission. 15. 5. Permission under ULC Act :- Before completion of the Conveyance, the Vendors shall obtain necessary permission of the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, for conveyance of the said land to the Purchaser. The Purchaser shall co-operate and give all necessary assistance required to obtain the said permission. 15. Vendors'' Undertaking :- If the Purchaser is desirous of completing the transaction relating to the area of the plot within the ceiling limit, pending receipt of exemption for the excess area of the land, the Vendors undertake and agree to execute necessary Sale Deed in respect of such area of the plot within the ceiling limit either in the name of the Purchaser or in the name of his nominee or nominees, as desired by the Purchaser." 10. Thus, it can be seen that, Clause No.1 of the ''Agreement to Sell'' clearly provides that, subject to the prior permission of the ''Competent Authority'' being obtained in this behalf by the Vendors, the Vendors shall sell to the Purchaser this 2,046.19 sq.mtrs. of the land. Clause No.3 then provides that, Purchaser shall take all necessary steps required for obtaining exemption under the provisions of the ULC Act under his costs and Vendor shall extend all the co-operation for obtaining such exemption. Therefore, so far as compliance of Clause No.3 is concerned, it falls under Sections 20 and 21 of the ULC Act and, therefore, it was the responsibility of the Appellant, being the Purchaser, to obtain the exemption under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Clause No.5 then provides that, it is the Vendor, who shall obtain necessary permission of the ''Competent Authority'' for conveyance of the land to the Purchaser and then Purchaser shall cooperate and extend necessary assistance. Therefore, the obligation under Section 26 of the ULC Act is cast on the Respondents to get the requisite permission. 11. Clause No.5 then provides that, it is the Vendor, who shall obtain necessary permission of the ''Competent Authority'' for conveyance of the land to the Purchaser and then Purchaser shall cooperate and extend necessary assistance. Therefore, the obligation under Section 26 of the ULC Act is cast on the Respondents to get the requisite permission. 11. Clause No.15 of the ''Agreement to Sell'' in the present case becomes more relevant, as it provides that, if the Purchaser, i.e. the Appellant herein, is desirous of completing the transaction relating to the area of the plot within the ceiling limit, pending receipt of exemption for the excess area of the land, the Vendor shall undertake and agree to execute necessary ''Sale-Deed'' in respect of such area of the plot within the ceiling limit, either in the name of the Purchaser or in the name of his nominee. Therefore, this clause then casts burden, no doubt, on the Vendor, i.e. the Respondents herein, provided the Purchaser, i.e. the Appellant herein, was desirous of completing the transaction relating to the area of the plot within the ceiling limit. 12. Admittedly, the Suit is filed in respect of specific performance of the area, which is falling within the ceiling limit. There is, however, one more qualification contained in this clause itself and it provides that, "pending receipt of the exemption for the excess area of the land". Therefore, this option can be exercised by the Appellant; provided the application is made for exemption of the excess area of the land and till that application is processed, i.e. till such exemption is received, if he wanted to go ahead with the purchase of the area of the plot within the ceiling limit, then he can do so. It necessarily, therefore, follows that, in order to get the benefit of this Clause No.15 of the ''Agreement to Sell'', the Appellant has to first make application for exemption of the excess area of the land. As can be seen from Clause No.3, the burden of taking all the necessary steps required for obtaining exemption under the provisions of the ULC Act was clearly placed on the Appellant. As can be seen from Clause No.3, the burden of taking all the necessary steps required for obtaining exemption under the provisions of the ULC Act was clearly placed on the Appellant. Only when the Appellant had made such application for exemption and that application was pending for the receipt of exemption, then only Appellant could have said that he wanted to go ahead with the purchase of the area of the plot within the ceiling limit. 13. Here in the case, admittedly, the Appellant has not made a single application for exemption under Section 20 or 21 of the ULC Act. In such situation, the first Appellate Court has rightly held that, it cannot be said that the Appellant was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; because, since beginning, Appellant has come before the Court, in the pleading also, with a case that there is nothing for him to do for the purpose of executing the ''Sale Deed'' and the entire burden was on the Respondents to obtain the permission. The careful reading of Clause No.15 of the ''Agreement to Sell'', coupled with the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 26 of the ULC Act, however, makes it abundantly clear that the initial burden was on the Appellant to seek such exemption and thereafter only, pending exemption, he could have asked for completing the transaction relating to the area of the plot of land within the ceiling limit and then in that case, it would have been the responsibility of the Respondents/Vendors to obtain the permission. If Appellant has not even admitted his liability, which was cast on him, and also denied such liability or the obligation, then it can hardly be said that all along the Appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Once it is held that, the Appellant has failed to prove the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, by making necessary application for exemption before the ''Competent Authority'', then his prayer for specific performance of the ''Agreement to Sell'' cannot be granted. 14. As regards the question whether the contract was concluded or whether the parties were at ad idem thereto, these were the questions of facts, to be decided on the basis of appreciation of evidence. No perversity is found therein. 14. As regards the question whether the contract was concluded or whether the parties were at ad idem thereto, these were the questions of facts, to be decided on the basis of appreciation of evidence. No perversity is found therein. Hence, it has to be held that, the first Appellate Court has rightly considered them and in the Second Appeal, as no substantial question of law is raised, this Court should not and need not dilate thereon. The Second Appeal, therefore, holds no merits; hence, stands dismissed. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, the ad-interim relief, which was granted by this Court at the time when the Second Appeal was filed, should be continued for a period of six weeks. Learned counsel for the Respondents strongly resists the same, submitting that it was not an interim relief, but an ad-interim relief, which was granted without considering the matter on merits. 16. In view thereof, I do not find that any ground is made out to extend the said order; especially when the Suit is of the year 1989. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. 17. In view of the above, Civil Application No.9 of 2017 pending in this Second Appeal does not survive and the same is disposed off as infructuous.