It was found that the parties had expressly stated in their contract the time at which delivery of possession was to take effect. Thus, the respondent was entitled to vacant possession.
Further, it was argued, whether time was of essence of the contract. It was found that time was vital, and that the appellant had not treated time of essence, but instead the appellant secretly attempted to resell the suit premises within which the last installment was to be made.
Therefore, the appellant could not withhold the deposit after he had purported to rescind the contract. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to vacant possession.