Appellant, Mayflower Associates, Inc., was defendant in the Court below in a proceeding in chancery brought by the appellee, Henry Elliott, seeking the appointment of a 'receiver and termination of a ninety-nine year leasе on"a hotel. From an order appointing a receiver and the final decree declaring the l’e'ase to be 'at an end/. Mayflower Associates, Inc. appeals.
By his complaint filed April 16, 1954, Elliott alleged that he was the lessor аnd Mayflower was the lessee under the lease in question. It was further alleged that lessee had breached the leasе by its failure to pay the 1953 municipal and county taxes totaling $7,051.40. These became delinquent’ on April 1, 1954, and the lessee had not paid them despite formal • written notice given by lessor on March 8, 1954, in accordance with a provision in the lease that after such notice by the lessor, if the default continued for a period of 30 days, the lease could thereupоn be terminated at the option of the lessor. Elliott claimed the right to have a receiver appointed by virtue of a provision in the lease which gave the landlord a first lien on the rents, issues and profits of the hotel property and whiсh further specifi
Appellant Mayflower filed an answer аdmitting the lease and admitting the default and, so far as we have been able to determine, failing to assert any substantial defense to the cause set forth in the complaint. The answer showed no tender of the amount due for delinquent taxes. The Chаncellor appointed the receiver on the day the complaint was filed and, on May 28, 1954, he granted a summary final dеcree for the landlord Elliott upon finding that no genuine issue existed as to material facts. By the final decree the lease was declared to be at an end, the lessee Mayflower’s interest under the lease was cancelled and inсidental relief was granted including the approval of receiver’s costs and the declaration of a lien for аttorney’s fees and court costs upon the lessee’s personal property located on the premises. Frоm this decree the lessee Mayflower appeals contending that this was a ninety-nine year lease; that it was inequitаble to declare a forfeiture of a lease of this duration which had been in existence for only about two years when this suit was instituted merely because of the failure to pay the taxes despite the 30-day notice given and in spite of thе specific terms and provisions of the lease itself.
There appears nowhere in this record any offer or tеnder on the part of the lessee to make good the arrearages and defaults revealed by the complaint and supporting evidence. If such had appeared, our ultimate conclusion might have been different.
We are cognizant of the rule that equity abhors a forfeiture and we are aware of cases such as Rader v. Prather,
This Court has recognized the propriety of proceeding in a court of equity to enforce a landlord’s lien for rent pursuant to specific provisions of the lease contract. See Richardson v. Myers,
The lease agreement in the case at bar specifically provided for the appointment of the rеceiver upon the occurrence of the default described in the complaint. It granted to the landlord a lien аgainst the rents, isues and profits of the demised premises. It was a comprehensive long-term lease that contained all of the usual covenants and provisions customarily found in such arrangements. If the contract was improvident it was the cоntract of the parties themselves and it is not within the province of this Court to attempt to strike a new agreement between them.
The appellant having failed to meet the conditions precedent to the granting of relief against the declaration of a forfeiture of the lease, it is now the conclusion of this Court that as lessee appellant was not in a
Finding no error, therefore, the decree of the lower court is
Affirmed.