2
二目
END
The courts in their equitable and statutory jurisdiction
endeavour to restore to his former position a petitioner for
relief against forfeiture by treating the lease as never having
been forfeited or by ordering a new lease on the same terms
(Wardens of Cholmeley School v. Sewell 1894. 2 .R.907; Denby
v. Evans, 1910 1 K.B. at 267; Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730). This jurisdiction is preserved and regulated by Ordinance No.4 of 1870, where power is given to grant relief by cancellation of
the memorial of re-entry. In the case of a lease for 999 years
the petitioner on paying the rent and costs gets back the balance
of his term. There have been cases during the last six years
in which the Governor in Council has given quasi-relief in the form of a new lease for 75 years (renewable for one similar term)
from the date of the decision; but in such cases the legal and
equitable rights of the petitioners to a longer term do not
appear to have been considered. In my opinion, had the
petitioners gone to the courts they would not have had the terms
of their holdings cut down in that manner. If the petitioner to
the court is a section holder it would probably be necessary for
him to join the remaining portion holder and other section holders as parties (Hare v. Elms, 1893 ↑ Q.B.604; Humphreys v. Morten 1905 1Ch.742) as the court would probably decline to apportion
the forfeiture or the right of re-entry; but with all the parties
before it end all arrears of rent paid I am of opinion that the
court would feel bound to order the cancellation of the memorial
of re-entry under section 8 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1870.
с
سه
Attorney General. 2).
32.