In Brief
An elderly widow inherited a stationery business and in 1963 allowed a man to continue running it under a written agreement specifying royalty payments. Decades later, when she sought to reclaim the business, he claimed tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act. The High Court agreed, treating rent receipts as evidence the contract was actually a lease. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agreement's clear language—mandating business continuation and royalties, not rent—created a license to conduct business, not a premises lease. Extrinsic evidence cannot contradict unambiguous written terms. The case is not covered by rent legislation, and the trial court had proper jurisdiction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.