Counter-claim for repairs was not a bona fide defence to winding-up proceedings over unpaid rent.

A company's asserted counter-claim for repairs was held insufficient to resist winding-up proceedings based on non-payment of rent. The court noted that the arrears were prima facie due and payable, the eviction proceedings had already ended against the company, and no contemporaneous correspondence or other material showed authority for the repairs or any prior arrangement to adjust them against rent. Although a valid counter-claim can, in principle, amount to a reasonable excuse for non-payment, that basis was not established on the facts. The company's defence was therefore treated as neither bona fide nor reasonable, and it was directed to deposit the claimed amount, failing which the petitions would be admitted for advertisement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company's asserted counter-claim for repairs furnished a bona fide and reasonable excuse to resist winding up proceedings founded on non-payment of rent.

Analysis: The arrears claimed by the petitioner were prima facie due and payable, and the eviction proceedings had ended in orders against the company after it did not contest them effectively. The company produced no contemporaneous correspondence or other material showing authority for the alleged repairs or a prior arrangement for adjustment against rent. The counter-claim was raised only after statutory notice and in opposition to the winding up petitions. A valid counter-claim may, in an appropriate case, amount to a reasonable excuse for non-payment, but that foundation was not established here.

Conclusion: The company's counter-claim did not constitute a bona fide defence or reasonable excuse. The petitioner was entitled to proceed, and the company was directed to deposit the claimed amount, failing which the petitions would stand admitted for advertisement.

---