With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and because such improvements did not constitute the pith or essence of the parties’ Lease. With respect to this issue, the-pertinent provision found in section 713.10 sets forth that “[w]hen an improvement is made by a lessee in accordance with an agreement between such lessee and her or his lessor, the lien shall extend also to the interest of such lessor.” It has long been established in Florida that in order for a lessor’s interest to be subject to mechanics’ liens arising from improvements made on its property pursuant to section 713.10 or its predecessor, section 84.03(2), Florida Statutes, the lease agreement must require the lessee to make certain improvements or the improvements must constitute the pith of the lease. See Anderson v. Sokolik, 88 So.2d 511, 514 (Fla.1956) (<HOLDING>); Brenner v. Smullian, 84 So.2d 44, 45-46

A: holding that the lease pro vision granting the lessee the option of constructing improvements did not make the construction the pith of the lease
B: holding that the lease at issue which set forth that the tenant may at its own expense make alterations and improvements did not require the lessee to make the improvements and that the alterations and improvements did not constitute the pith of the lease
C: holding that the lessors interest in the leased property was subject to liens because it was perfectly obvious that the parties knew that the improvements at issue were the pith of the lease and that except for them the lease would not have been executed and because the improvements were essential to the purpose of the lease
D: holding that the mere fact that the parties to a lease may contemplate that the lessee will make improvements to the property is insufficient to subject the lessors interests to mechanics liens and that the lease must instead expressly or impliedly require the requirements to be made
C.