Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in Krishna Shetti Alias Krishnayya ... vs Gilbert Pinto And Ors. on 6 January, 1919Matching Fragments
2. Two question arise in the case whether the court has any general jurisdiction to relieve in a case of this kind, and if not, whether such jurisdiction has been conferred upon it by the amendment to Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act.
3. As regards the first question, it is well settled that a court of equity could not relieve against a right of re-entry or forfeiture under any provision or stipulation in a lease for a breach of any covenant in the lease except the covenant for payment of rent. The history of this question is most lucidly explained by Kay, L.J., in Barrow v. Isaacs and Son (1891) 1 Q.B. 425 : " Courts of Equity " he says "assumed jurisdiction to relieve against forfeitures and penalties where the only object was to secure payment of a definite sum of money, even though there was no fraud, accident, surprise or mistake. On this principle it relieved against the payment of the whole penalty on a money bond before the Statutes of 4 and 5 Anne Ch. XVI Sections 12, 13 and 8 and 9 Wm. 3, C, 11, which enabled the courts of law to give the same relief. Also against forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and by statute 4 Geo.2 C. 28, its powers in this respect were somewhat restricted by limiting the time for their exercise to six months after execution in ejectment. At first there seems to have been some hesitation whether this relief might not be extended to other cases of forfeiture for breaches of covenants such as to repair, to insure and the like where compensation could be made, but it was soon recognised that there would be great difficulty in estimating the proper amount of compensation and since the decision of lord Eldon in Hill v. Barcklay (1811) 18 Ves. 56 it has always been held that equity would not relieve merely on the ground that it could give compensation upon breach of any covenant in a lease except the covenant for payment 'of rent. But of course this left unaffected the undoubted jurisdiction to relieve in case of breach occasioned by fraud, accident, suprise or mistake."