- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bejoy Chandra Sinha v. Howrah Amta Light Railway Co. Ltd. By Their Managing Agents, Martin And Co.
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement to lease a house on the Grand Trunk Road in Howrah, and in the alternative for damages. In 1912 the first defendant (The Howrah Amta Railway Company) proposed to hire the house as staff residence. The parties agreed orally (no formal lease executed) that the defendant should hold the house from 1 November 1912 to 31 October 1915 at Rs. 190 per month. After correspondence the defendant entered into possession and occupied the house for the term.
In July 1914 the defendant complained about defective electric wiring and threatened to do repairs and deduct costs from rent if the plaintiff did not act. The plaintiff offered to repair provided the defendant would agree to continue the lease for a further three years after the current term; the defendant replied by letter dated 8 December 1914 agreeing, and the plaintiff carried out the repairs. After the expiry of the original term the defendant continued in occupation without a formal lease. The defendant vacated the premises on 30 June 1916 after a notice dated 9 June stating they would vacate after a month. The plaintiff refused to accept surrender and instituted the suit on 26 January 1917. Messrs. Martin & Co., managing agents, were impleaded and contended they had no liability.
The Courts below dismissed the suit but on different grounds. The Subordinate (trial) Judge held that the 8 December 1914 letter constituted the lease and, being unstamped and unregistered, was inadmissible so specific performance could not be granted. On appeal the District Judge affirmed the dismissal on a different ground: he held that when the defendant requested repairs on 8 April 1916 and the plaintiff did not comply, the defendant was entitled to vacate.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the District Judge was correct in holding that the defendant became entitled to vacate because the plaintiff failed to carry out repairs requested on 8 April 1916.
- Whether the Subordinate Judge was correct in treating the correspondence (notably the letters of 3 December and 8 December 1914) as a completed lease which, being unstamped and unregistered, was inadmissible and prevented specific performance.
- Whether a court should grant specific performance of the alleged agreement to lease where the formal lease document was not executed/registered but an enforceable agreement otherwise existed.
- If specific performance is not appropriate, what remedies (damages or rent) are available to the plaintiff when the defendant vacated the premises after the original term but before a legally effective termination of the tenancy.
- Whether the notice served by the defendant on 9 June 1916 validly terminated a month-to-month tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act (Sections 106 and 116) or whether the notice was ineffective.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chappell v. Gregory (1864) 34 Beav. 250; 55 E.R. 631 | Cited to show that, in the absence of contract, a landlord is not necessarily bound to put premises into habitable condition or to do repairs. | The court relied on this line of authority to reject the District Judge's ground that the plaintiff was under an obligation to repair such that the defendant could lawfully vacate. |
| Gott v. Gandy (1853) 2 El. & Bl. 845 | Supports the proposition that a landlord is not bound to make repairs unless contracted or statutorily obliged. | Used with other authorities to establish no implied obligation on the lessor to repair in the absence of a covenant. |
| Arden v. Pullen (1842) 10 M. & W. 321 | Illustrates that neglect to repair may render premises uninhabitable but does not create a general right for the lessee to call for repairs by the lessor absent contract. | Cited to show the distinction between consequences of non-repair and a lessee's right to terminate; court concluded termination was not the lessee's remedy under statute/contract as applied here. |
| Barker v. Barker (1828) 3 Car. & P. 557 | Shows landlord has no right to enter the premises to make repairs if no express power in lease; entry may be trespass. | Employed to support the broader principle that repair obligations and rights of entry depend on express terms, reinforcing that the lessee could not treat the lessor's inaction as giving a right to terminate. |
| Stocker v. Planet Building Society (1879) 27 W.R. 877 | Authority for the proposition that a landlord entering to repair without express power may be restrained as trespass. | Cited as part of the body of authority limiting a landlord's rights and showing the legal framework for repair obligations. |
| Anworth v. Johnson (1832) 5 Car. & P. 239 | Establishes an implied obligation of a tenant from year to year to keep premises wind and water-tight. | Cited to define tenant obligations; court used such authorities to delineate what the tenant must do versus what the lessor must do. |
| Leach v. Thomas (1835) 7 Car. & P. 328 | Supports the implied tenant obligation to maintain wind and water-tightness. | Part of the authorities distinguishing tenant obligations from lessor obligations, informing the court's assessment of whether the defendant could lawfully vacate. |
| Wedd v. Porter (1916) 2 K.B. 91 | Reiterates the tenant's duty to keep premises wind and water-tight and make fair repairs. | Used to show the tenant's maintenance obligations and to counter the District Judge's finding that the plaintiff had an enforceable duty to make the requested repairs. |
| Cheetham v. Rampson (1791) 4 T.R. 318 | Cited for the principle that a tenant must make fair and tenantable repairs. | Served to clarify the limited scope of tenant repair obligations compared to the lessor's duties (or lack thereof) absent contract. |
| Gregory v. Mighell (1811) 18 Ves. 328 | Another authority on the tenant's covenant to repair and maintain. | Reinforced the court's analysis on tenant obligations relevant to the factual repair disputes. |
| Russell v. Shenton (1842) 2 G. & D. 573; 3 Q.B. 449 | Examples of tenant obligations such as cleansing drains and sewers. | Used to illustrate practical instances of tenant repair/maintenance duties and to show the boundary of such duties in this case. |
| Lister v. Lane (1893) 2 Q.B. 21 | Principle that where an old building is demised with a covenant to repair, the tenant is not required to deliver it up in a renewed form. | Applied to show that even if a covenant to repair existed, the lessee's obligation on surrender is to restore condition at initial possession subject to wear and tear; this undermined any finding that the plaintiff was obliged to render the house newly habitable. |
| Boyd v. Kreig (17 C. 548 ; 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 905) | Relied upon by the Subordinate Judge to support the proposition that correspondence could create a present lease necessitating registration. | The court noted this reliance but held that even if correspondence created a lease requiring registration, specific performance could still be sought to compel execution/registration of the formal document. |
| Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zemindari Co. (multiple reports cited) | Also relied upon by the Subordinate Judge in support of the view that the letters constituted a document requiring registration. | Cited as authority the Subordinate Judge relied on; the appellate court accepted that such authorities exist but observed that the requirement of registration does not necessarily defeat a suit for specific performance where a contract to execute a registered instrument exists. |
| Puchha Lal v. Kunj Behary Lal (20 Ind. Cas. 803) | Authority that a suit for specific performance lies where the document essential for completion of the contract has not been executed; party can call for execution and registration. | Grouped with other authorities to reject the Subordinate Judge's conclusion that the absence of registration prevents specific performance; court applied it to show specific performance remains available to compel execution/registration. |
| Mahomed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganouli (28 Ind. Cas. 930) | Another authority supporting availability of specific performance when formal conveyance/document has not yet been executed. | Used to reinforce that the lack of a stamped/registered instrument does not automatically bar equitable relief where an enforceable contract exists. |
| Maddison v. Alderson (1883) 8 App. Cas. 467 | English authority cited in the context of specific performance of agreements relating to land. | Placed alongside other precedents to show established equitable remedy practice; court relied on this group in rejecting the argument that non-registration ruled out specific performance as a matter of law. |
| Venkayyamma Rao v. Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao (34 Ind. Cas. 921) | Indian authority on specific performance where formal title documents are not executed. | Used by the court to show consistency of Indian authority with the principle that specific performance can be enforced to obtain execution/registration of the requisite document. |
| Troilokya Nath Roy v. Sarat Chandra Banerjee (32 C. 123) | Cited for the proposition that under Section 116 (read with Section 106) a tenancy that continues after expiry becomes a tenancy from year to year or month to month according to the purpose. | The court applied this to conclude that after 31 October 1915 the defendant was a tenant from month to month and thus governed by the notice provisions of Section 106. |
| Jogendra Krishna Roy v. Kurpa Harshi & Co. (68 Ind. Cas. 993 ; (1923) A.I.R. (C) 63) | Authority that, when a periodic tenancy is prematurely terminated, the lessor is entitled to damages and not to rent for the unexpired term. | The court relied on this precedent to determine the appropriate remedy: damages (assessed at Rs. 400) rather than rent for the unexpired portion of the original term. |
| Gray v. Owen (1910) 1 K.B. 622 | Establishes that acceptance of surrender does not preclude a lessor from suing for damages for breach of contract; acceptance does not destroy the cause of action. | Applied to confirm that even if surrender were treated as accepted, the plaintiff could still claim damages for unlawful vacation before lawful termination. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The appellate court examined both grounds relied on below and found neither supported dismissal.
First, addressing the District Judge's ground (that the plaintiff's failure to repair entitled the defendant to vacate), the court relied on the Transfer of Property Act (Sections 108 clauses (e), (f) and (m) cited in the opinion) and an extensive body of case law to conclude that:
- There was no contractual or statutory obligation on the plaintiff (lessor) to make the repairs complained of; in the absence of an express covenant the lessor is not bound to do repairs.
- Even if the lessor were under obligation and neglected to do repairs, the statutory remedy under Section 108 (clause (f)) is that the lessee may make repairs after reasonable notice and recover expenses from the lessor (by deduction from rent or otherwise); termination of the lease was not the lessee's statutory remedy.
- The decided authorities distinguishing landlord and tenant repair obligations supported this analysis (landlord not generally obliged to repair; tenant has implied duties such as keeping premises wind and water-tight and making fair repairs).
- Consequently, the District Judge was not correct in treating non-repair as giving the defendant a right to terminate the tenancy.
Second, addressing the Subordinate Judge's ground (that the 8 December 1914 letter constituted a present lease which, being unstamped and unregistered, was inadmissible), the court accepted that the Subordinate Judge relied on authorities to that effect. However, the appellate court explained that where the contract essential for a lease has not been embodied in an executed instrument, a suit for specific performance is available to compel execution and registration of the formal document; it cited a group of Indian and English authorities to that principle. From that perspective the Subordinate Judge's conclusion could not be sustained as a bar to specific performance.
Having disposed of both grounds relied upon below, the court considered whether specific performance should be granted in any event. It refused specific performance on the factual basis that the house's condition in 1916 (including roofs falling in during the rains) was such that no Court of Equity should force the property upon the lessee. The court noted the absence of information as to the present condition and found it impossible to decree specific performance of the agreement as prayed.
The court then considered alternative relief. It concluded that, legally, the defendant had held over after 31 October 1915 and had become a tenant from month to month under Section 116 read with Section 106. Termination of a month-to-month tenancy requires a notice expiring with the end of a month (15 days' notice under Section 106). The notice served by the defendant (dated 9 June, purporting to give one month's notice) did not expire with the end of a month of the tenancy and was therefore ineffective; the tenancy had not been lawfully terminated when the Company vacated the premises on 30 June 1916.
Because the tenancy was prematurely terminated, the plaintiff was entitled to damages (not rent for the unexpired term), in line with precedent. The court assessed damages at Rs. 400. It also directed that each party pay their own costs in all courts and that costs already recovered be refunded.
Holding and Implications
Decree of the District Judge set aside; suit decreed in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 400.
Implications and immediate effects:
- The appellate court rejected both grounds relied upon below: (a) that the plaintiff's failure to repair justified the defendant's vacation; and (b) that unstamped/unregistered correspondence, if treated as a lease, precluded specific performance as a matter of law.
- The court refused to grant specific performance because the house's condition (including roofs having fallen in during 1916) made specific enforcement inequitable or impossible on the facts before the court.
- On the alternate remedy the court held that the defendant had become a monthly tenant by holding over and that the notice served was legally ineffective; accordingly the defendant unlawfully vacated and the plaintiff was entitled to damages (awarded Rs. 400) rather than rent for the unexpired term.
- Costs: Each party to bear their own costs in all courts; costs already recovered to be refunded.
The opinion addresses application of existing statutory provisions and established case law to the facts; it does not purport to establish a novel rule of law beyond applying settled principles (no broader new precedent is announced in the opinion itself).
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to lease and in the alternative for damages. The subject-matter of the litigation is a house on the Grand Trunk Road in Howrah. In 1912, the first defendant (The Howrah Anita Railway Co.) proposed to the plaintiff to hire this house as a residence for their staff, The plaintiff agreed and the final agreement was that the defendant should hold the house for a period of three years from the 1st November 1912 to the 31st October 1915 at a monthly rent of Rs. 190. No formal lease was executed. But after letters had been exchanged, the defendant entered into occupation of the house and continued in occupation till the end of the term of the lekse. In July 1914, long before the expiry of the term, the defendant informed the plaintiff by a letter that the electric light wiring of the house was in a bad condition and required repairing. The plaintiff took no notice of this request. The result was that the defendant again wrote to the plaintiff and intimated that if the plaintiff did not make the repairs, the defendant would do the needful and deduct the costs from the rent. This made the plaintiff alert and in reply he intimated to the defendant that he was willing to repair the electric light wiring, provided the defendant would continue the lease for three years more from the -expiry of the current term. The defendant agreed to this proposal by a letter dated the 8th December 1914 and the plaintiff executed the repairs in due course. After the expiry of the term the defendant continued in occupation, but no formal lease was executed. On the 30th June 1916 the defendant left the house. The Company had previously given notice to the plaintiff on the 9th June that they would vacate the house after the lapse of a month from that date. The plaintiff refused to accept the surrender and instituted this suit on the 26th January 1917. Messrs. Martin & Co., who were the Managing Agents of the Howrah Amta Railway Company, were also joined as defendants; but they contended that they had no liability in respect of the matter in dispute. The Courts below have dismissed the suit, but on different grounds. The Court of first instance, came to the conclusion that the letter of the 8th December 1914 constituted the lease, and that, as it was neither stamped nor registered, it was not admissible in evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff could not claim specific performance. On appeal the District Judge has affirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge on an entirely different ground. He does not discuss the question of the effect of the letters from the plaintiff to the defendant dated the 3rd December 1914 and the letter from the defendant to the plaintiff dated the 8th December 1914. He proceeds on the ground that when, on the 8th April 1916, the defendant called upon the plaintiff to repair the house thoroughly and the plaintiff did not comply with the request, the defendant became entitled to vacate the premises.
2. On the present appeal we have been invited to consider, whether the view taken by the District Judge is correct and whether the decree of dismissal could be supported on the ground assigned by the District Judge. In our opinion it is plain that the decree of dismissal cannot be supported on either of the grounds mentioned in the Courts below.
3. As regards the view taken by the District Judge, it is plain that the plaintiff was under no obligation, contractual or statutory, to effect the repairs of the house. In this connection reference may be made to Clauses (e), (f) and (m) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. Clause (e) is in these terms :--"If by fire tempest or flood or violence of any army or of a mob or other irresistible force, any material part of the property be wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let, the lease shall, at the option of the lessee, be void; provided that, if the in jury be occasioned by the wrongful a t or default of the lessee, he shall not be entitled to avail himself of the benefit of this provision ". Clause (f) is in these terms:--"If the lessor neglects to make, within a reasonable time after notice, any repairs which he is bound to make to the property, the lessee may make the same himself, and deduct the expense of such repairs with interest from the rent, or otherwise recover it from the lessor ". Clause (m) is in these terms :--"The lessee is bound to keep, and on the termination of the lease to restore, the property in as good condition as it was at the time when he was put in possession in subject only to £he changes caused by reasonable wear and tear or irresistible force." It is plain that none of these clauses entitles the lessee to call upon the lessor to repair the property. In fact, unless there is a contract to the contrary, the lessor is not necessarily bound to make any repairs whatever. This is clear from a long series of decisions of great authority.
4. In the absence of a contract to do repairs t or of an obligation imposed by Statute, there is no obligation on the part of a landlord to put premises into habitable condition Chappell v. Gregory (1864) 34 Beav. 250 : 55 E.R. 631 : 145 R.R. 5014, or to do any repairs whatever upon them, Gott v. Gandy (1853) 2 El. & Bl. 845 : 2. C.L.R. 392 : 23 L.J.Q.B. 1 : 18 Jur. 310 : 2 W.R. 38 : 118 E.R. 984 : 22 L.T. (O.S.) 97 : 95 R.R. 848, though by neglecting to do so they become-uninhabitable Arden v. Pullen (1842) 10 M. & W. 321 : 11 L.J. Ex 359 : 152 E.R. 942 : 62 R.R. 627. In fact, as stated in Barker v. Barker (1828) 3 Car. & P. 557 the landlord has no right to go upon the premises, if he desire to make repairs, and, if he do so in the absence of an express power in the lease he will be guilty of a trespass and may be restrained by injunction, although the non-repair may cause a forfeiture of his own lease Stocker v. Planet Building Society (1879) 27 W.R. 877. On the other hand, the implied obligation of a tenant from year to year is to keep the premises wind and water-tight Anworth v. Johnson (1832) 5 Car. & P. 239 : 38 R.R. 821; Leach v. Thomas (1835) 7 Car. & P. 328 : 48 R.R.790; Wedd v. Porter (1916) 2 K.B. 91 at p. 100 : 85 L.J.K.B. 1298 : 115 L.T. 243, and to make fair and tenantable repairs Cheetham v. Rampson (1791) 4 T.R. 318 : 11 R.R. 397 : 100 E.R. 1041; Gregory v. Mighell (1811) 18 Ves. 328 : 11 R.R. 207 : 34 E.R. 341, as by putting fences in order or replacing windows or doors that are broken during his occupation, of cleansing drains and sewers, Russell v. Shenton (1842) 2 G. & D. 573 : 3 Q.B. 449 : 11 L.J.Q.B. 289 : 6 Jur. 1059 : 114 E.R. 579 : 61 R.R. 249.
5. In the case before us there was no covenant to repair and the lessor could not be called upon by the lessee to effect any repairs. But even if the lessor was under an obligation to effect the repairs and failed to comply with the request of the lessee, the lessee was not entitled to terminate the tenancy. Under Section 108 he could remedy the breach himself, after giving a reasonable notice to the lessor and to recover the amount expended by him together with interest either by deducting it from the rent or otherwise.? It is not suggested that if a tenant had taken a house which is out of repairs, he should put it in repairs when 1he lease comes to an end; but he is hound to maintain and restore the property in the condition in which it was when it was leased out to him. If the building, when demised, was an old one, and there was a covenant to repair it is not necessary that the old building should be delivered up in a renewed form: Lister v. Lane (1893) 2 Q.B. 21 : 62 L.J.Q.B. 583 : 4 R. 474 : 69 L.T. 176 : 41 W.R. 626 : 57 J.P. 725. The position is thus clear that the lessee was not entitled to terminate the lease on the ground assigned by; the District Judge.
6. We have next to consider the ground assigned by the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge has held that there was a completed contract for the lease and that consequently the letter of the 8th December 1914 should not be received in evidence, as it was neither stamped nor registered. In support of this proposition he has placed reliance upon the decisions in Boyd v. Kreig 17 C. 548 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 905; Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zemindari Co. 28 Ind. Cas. 879 : 19 C.W.N. 347 : 22 C.L.J. 44 and Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapore Zemindari Co. 53 Ind. Cas. 534 : 47 C. 485 : 37 M.L.J. 525 : 17 A.L.J. 1117 : 24 C.W.N. 177 : (1920) M.W.N. 66 : 27 M.L.T. 42 : 11 L.W. 301 : 46 I.A. 240 : 31 C.L.J. 298 : 22 Bom. L.R. 488 (P.C.). The letter of the 3rd December 1914 was in these terms: "I beg to inform you that I shall be glad to do the necessary electric wiring on your assuring me that you will continue to be tenant for a further period of three years after the expiration of the lease. I require this assurance, as on the present terms of the lease, I have not to do any repairs or works in the building as long as the current agreement lasts." The reply dated the 8th December was in these terms:" I am prepared to continue the lease for three years and would like sanction at once to start work on the" electric wiring, as at present it is unsafe." Let us assume that the effect of this correspondence was to create a present demise, subject to the reservation that the commencement of the lease was postponed till the date of expiry of the term then current. Assume also that this document required registration. Still, that does not furnish an answer to the suit for specific performance. A suite for specific performance lies when the lease essential for the completion of the contract has not been executed, and if there is a valid enforceable contract, either party is entitled to call upon the other to complete the transaction by the execution and registration of the document of title; Puchha Lal v. Kunj Behary Lal 20 Ind. Cas. 803 : 19 C.L.J. 213 : 18 C.W.N. 445; Mahomed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganouli 28 Ind. Cas. 930 : 42 C. 801 : 21 C.L.J. 231 : 17 Bom.L.R. 420 : 28 M.L.J. 548 : 19 C.W.N. 250 : 13 A.L.J. 229 : 17 M.L.T. 143 : 2 L.W. 258 : (1915) M.W.N. 621 : 42 I.A. (P.C.); Maddison v. Alderson (1883) 8 App. Cas. 467 : 52 L.J.Q.B. 737 : 49 L.T. 303 : 31 W.R. 820 : 47 J.P. 821 and. Venkayyamma Rao v. Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao 34 Ind. Cas. 921 : 39 M. 509 at p. 525 : 20 C.W.N. 1054 : 14 A.L.J. 797 : 31 M.L.J.58 : (1916) 2 M.W.N. 23 : 20 M.L.T. 137 : 4 L.W. 58 : 18 Bom. L.R. 651 : 24 C.L.J. 279 : 43 I.A. 138 (P.C.). From this point of view, the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge cannot be supported.
7. But we are of opinion that, in the events that have happened, this is not a case in which we should make a decree for specific performance. The condition of the house in 1916 was such that no Court of Equity would force it upon the intending lessee. The evidence makes it abundantly clear that the roofs of some of the rooms came down during the rains of 1916. We have no information as to the present condition of the house, and it is impossible for us to decree specific performance of the agreement which forms the foundation of the claim. This, however, does not justify the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. As the agreement cannot be specifically enforced, the defendant Company cannot claim the position which they would have occupied if the requisite document had been executed and registered. Their position in law, consequently, was that after the expiry of the lease on the 31st October 1915 they were tenants from month to month. They held over upon payment of rent to the landlord. Hence under Section 116, Transfer of Property Act, the lease was renewed from year to year or from month to month according to the purpose for which the property was leased as specified in Section 106. Thus, although the original term vas for three years, the defendant Company became tenant from month to month under Section 116 read with Section 106; Troilokya Nath Roy v. Sarat Chandra Banerjee 32 C. 123 : 8 C.W.N. 901. That tenancy could be terminated by a notice to quit as pre-scribed in Section 106. Under that section a lease of immoveable property from month to month is terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by 15 days notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. In the present case, the notice which was served was no doubt a notice of a longer duration than 15 days. But it did not expire with the end of a month of the tenancy. The notice was thus inoperative in law and the tenancy had not been legally terminated when the defendant Company vacated ' the premises. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled, not to rent for the remainder of the term, but only to damages, as explained in the case of Jogendra Krishna Roy v. Kurpa Harshi & Co. 68 Ind. Cas. 993 : 49 C. 345 : 35 C.L.J. 175 : (1923) A.I.R. (C) 63. Where the term of a tenancy, under which rent is payable periodically, is brought to a, premature termination, the lessor is entitled to damages and not to rent for the unexpired term of the lease. Even the acceptance of surrender does not preclude the lessor from suing for damages for breach of the contract; it does not destroy the existing cause of action. This conclusion is in conformity with the decision in Gray v. Owen (1910) 1 K.B. 622 : 79 L.J.K.B. 389 : 102 L.T. 187 : 26 T.L.R. 297. The plaintiff was bound to let out the house after the defendant Company had vacated it, even though unlawfully, and thereby to minimise the damage. We are consequently of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to damages inasmuch as the defendant Company vacated the premises before the lease had been lawfully terminated. We assess the damages at Rs. 400.
8. The result is that the decree of the District Judge is set aside and the suit is decreed for Rs. 400. Each party will pay his own costs in all the Courts. Costs, it already recovered, will be refunded.
Alert