In Brief
The appellant, widow of a stationery shop owner, entered into an agreement in 1963 allowing the respondent to continue running the family business for a monthly royalty of Rs. 90. When the appellant sought to reclaim the business in 1980, the respondent claimed to be a tenant protected under the Bombay Rent Act. The High Court agreed, finding the agreement was a license to use premises covered by the Act. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that plain, unambiguous contractual language cannot be contradicted by extrinsic evidence like receipts labeled "rent." The agreement created a license to continue existing business, not a premises license, and therefore fell outside the Bombay Rent Act. The Trial Court's decree was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.