Promissory estoppel and interim protection in industrial shed dispute were limited by non-payment and lack of clear representation.

Promissory estoppel was held unavailable where the alleged policy statements and circulars were only provisional, no clear and definite representation inducing a change of position was shown, and the plaintiffs' own conduct in remaining in possession while not meeting rent obligations undermined equitable relief. Interim protection against eviction was continued only conditionally, requiring deposit of arrears and future rent at the rates indicated with interest within the stipulated time. On the pricing dispute, the civil court's jurisdiction was prima facie not barred. The earlier interim orders were therefore modified, with continued protection made dependent on compliance with payment directions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to invoke promissory estoppel to insist that the industrial sheds be transferred to them on hire-purchase terms and at a price not including the components claimed by the defendant; (ii) Whether the interim orders restraining eviction and dispossession should continue, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was prima facie barred in respect of the pricing dispute.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to invoke promissory estoppel to insist that the industrial sheds be transferred to them on hire-purchase terms and at a price not including the components claimed by the defendant?

Analysis: The claimed policy statements and circulars were treated as inchoate and provisional, subject to further discussion and change. The plaintiffs had already entered into lease arrangements, remained in possession for years, and did not comply with the contractual rent obligations or the subsequent reduced payment schedules. The essential requirement for promissory estoppel, namely a clear representation inducing a change of position by the promisee, was not made out. The conduct of the plaintiffs also negatived the invocation of equity.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel was rejected and the plaintiffs were not entitled, on that basis, to insist upon transfer of the sheds on the terms claimed by them.

Issue (ii): Whether the interim orders restraining eviction and dispossession should continue, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was prima facie barred in respect of the pricing dispute?

Analysis: The plaintiffs had failed to pay rent even at the reduced rates offered by the defendant, and the court held that, at the interlocutory stage, they should pay arrears and future rent at the rates indicated in the relevant letters with interest. The existing interim protection was therefore made conditional upon deposit within the stipulated time. On jurisdiction, the court observed that the civil court was prima facie not barred so far as the question of the price of the sheds was concerned.

Conclusion: The interim relief was continued only subject to compliance with the payment directions, and the civil court's jurisdiction on the pricing issue was prima facie upheld.

Final Conclusion: The applications were disposed of by modifying the earlier interim orders, denying unconditional equitable relief to the plaintiffs, and allowing continued protection only on compliance with the directed payments.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel requires a clear and definite representation that induces the promisee to alter position, and it cannot be invoked where the alleged promise is provisional or where the party seeking equity has not itself acted equitably.

---