ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 29.09.2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan in M.A. No. 26 of 2019 confirming the order dated 16.04.2019 in O.S. No. 273 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, dismissing I.A. No. II filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 2. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants seeking the relief of issuance of a direction to the defendants to renew the lease of the schedule site for a further period of fifteen years (15) from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2033 as per Clause (9) of the registered Lease Deed dated 26.06.2003 on mutually agreed terms and for execution of the necessary registered lease deed. 3. The suit is contested by the defendants. 4. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. II under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary measure of restraining the defendants not to interfere with the suit schedule property. The said application was resisted by the defendants. The Trial Court by order dated 16.04.2019 (Annexure ‘B’) dismissed the application and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in M.A. No. 26 of 2019. The said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by impugned order dated 29.09.2020, dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the order dated 16.04.2019 in O.S. No. 273 of 2019. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below, the plaintiff has presented this petition. 5. I have heard Smt. Pavithra H. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are contrary to the Lease Deed dated 26.06.2003 wherein Clause (9) stipulates for extension of the lease period and the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by both the Courts below while considering I.A. No. II filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Accordingly, she sought for interference of this Court in the impugned orders. 7. Per contra, Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents, sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core issue to be answered in this writ petition is with regard to Clause (9) stated in the lease deed as well as the recitals in the lease deed with regard to extension of the period by the lessors and the lessee, who are the respondents and petitioner respectively, in this writ petition. 9. The relevant clause in the lease deed dated 26.06.2003 produced at Annexure ‘C’ reads as under: “WHEREAS THE LESSORS have offered to grant the LESSEE the aforesaid land measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 95 feet, morefully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the schedule property on lease for a period of 15 years, renewable by another 15 years on mutually agreed terms between the parties for the purpose of establishing a Retail Outlet. The Lessee shall pay a rent of Rs. 15,000/- per month Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the lessor and agrees to pay increased rentals @ 15% every 5 years.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. A perusal of the recitals of Annexure ‘C’ would indicate that initially the suit schedule property was given on a lease of mutual agreed terms between the parties. In the case on hand, the findings recorded by both the Courts below that there is no clause in the lease deed providing for continuation of the lease period unilaterally by the plaintiff. Having regard to the same, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are justified and proper and does not call for any interference in this petition. 11. It is also made clear that the writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the interference with regard to the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below is very limited unless there is flagrant violation of fundamental principles and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that the impugned orders are just and proper and therefore the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.