AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 193 wordsIn the instrument in the case (Exhibit A) there is a peculiar provision which does not appear in the cases cited. Here there is a covenant to pay
rent on the 15th of April. No forfeiture is provided for on account of default in such payment. But it is provided that if the default continue until
December, then the lease is to be forfeited. It appears to us that it was clearly not intended that the clause of forfeiture was to be merely in
terrorem.
There is another ground on which the defendant must fail and that is that when pleading his alleged right to be relieved against the forfeiture he
omitted to make any tender or to pay the money into Court but on the contrary pleaded payment unsuccessfully.
The maxim ""he who seeks equity must do equity"" applies apart from the Transfer of Property Act.
The appeal is allowed. The decrees are reversed. There must be a decree for the property and for Rs. 26-6-8.
[Their Lordships then remitted an issue for finding on the question of improvements but this is not material for this report:-Ed.]