Landlord and tenant – Lease. The commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR) procedure was not the equivalent of the common law remedy of distress. The Chancery Division so ruled in dismissing the landlords' appeal against a judge's ruling that their purported forfeiture of a lease after enforcement agents had used the CRAR procedure in respect of the tenant's goods had been unlawful, because the landlords had waived their right of forfeiture by exercising CRAR. The court held, among other things, that the landlords' use of CRAR had contained an unequivocal representation that the lease was continuing, and that the judge had not erred in his conclusions or in proceeding on a summary basis.