At common law stipulations as to time in a contract giving an option for renewal of a lease of land were considered to be of the _, essence of the contract even if they were not expressed to be so and were construed as conditions precedent. Equity followed the common law rule in respect of such contracts and did not regard the D stipulation as to time as not of the essence of the bargain. As stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 3, art. 281, p. 165 : "An option for the renewal of a lease, or for the purchase or re-purchase of property, must in all cases be exercised • strictly within the time limited for the purpose, otherwise it will lapse." This passage was quoted with approval by Danckwerts E L. J. in Hare v. Nicoll('). A similar statement of law is to be found in Foa's General Law of Landlord and Tenant, 8th ed., Art. 453, p. 310, and in Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant, 14th ed., p. 54. The reason is that a renewal of a lease is a privilege and if the tenant wishes tp claim the privilege he must do so strictly within the time limited for the purpose. F With regard to equitable relief against the failure of the tenant to give notice Of renewal within the stipulated time, the law is accurately stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 23, p. 626, Art. 1329, footnote (u) thus :-"Relief will not be given in equity against failure to give notice in time, save under special circumstances. The decided cases show that in such cases G relief is not given in equity save upon the ground of unavoidable accident, fraud, surprise, ignorance not wilful or inequitable conduct on the part of the lessor precluding him from refusing to - give the renewal. The limits of the equitable interference in such cases were clearly stated by the Master of the Rolls (Sir R. P. Arden) in Eaton v. Lyon.(8 ) He observed:-
