In Brief
The plaintiff sought a declaration as a deemed tenant under the Bombay Rents Act, 1947, of hotel premises based on an agreement dated 16 August 1967 styled as an agreement to conduct the defendant's hotel business. The trial court found the plaintiff was a licensee; the appellate court reversed, and the High Court upheld that finding. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the agreement plainly concerns conducting the business, not leasing the premises. The literal meaning, the parties' nomenclature ('owner' and 'conductor'), and the absence of a clause transferring possession confirmed this. Oral evidence could not contradict the written agreement to establish a license relationship. The plaintiff therefore does not qualify as a deemed tenant.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.