https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288718 Relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent remains an equitable discretion under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, and a contractual clause allowing payment after the due date with interest does not by itself bar that relief. The court treated the further-payment period as part of the bargain, not as an automatic exclusion of the power to relieve forfeiture. Where the courts below had concurrently granted relief on the facts, appellate interference was warranted only on proof of caprice or error of principle; none was shown. The tenant's entitlement to equitable relief was therefore upheld and the concurrent orders were left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 1927 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:22:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288718 Relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent remains an equitable discretion under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, and a contractual clause allowing payment after the due date with interest does not by itself bar that relief. The court treated the further-payment period as part of the bargain, not as an automatic exclusion of the power to relieve forfeiture. Where the courts below had concurrently granted relief on the facts, appellate interference was warranted only on proof of caprice or error of principle; none was shown. The tenant's entitlement to equitable relief was therefore upheld and the concurrent orders were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Feb 1927 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288718