Clear written contract terms prevail: extrinsic evidence cannot override an arrangement found to continue business, not license premises.

A clear and unambiguous written arrangement for continuation of an existing stationery business under the name "Karandikar Brothers" on monthly royalty was construed as neither a lease nor a licence of the shop premises, so the Bombay Rent Act did not apply and civil court jurisdiction was not ousted. Extrinsic evidence could not be used to contradict or vary the document's terms. Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act applies only where plain language is unmeaning in relation to existing facts, and it must operate consistently with Section 92, which excludes oral evidence that would alter written terms. The High Court's reliance on external evidence was therefore erroneous and the decree for the appellant was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the agreement dated 07.02.1963 created a licence to use the shop premises attracting tenancy consequences under the Bombay Rent Act, or whether it was an arrangement for continuation of the existing business; and whether extrinsic evidence could be used to contradict the clear terms of the document.

Analysis: The contractual language showed that the arrangement was for continuation of the existing stationery business under the name "Karandikar Brothers" on payment of monthly royalty, and not for leasing or licensing the premises as such. The document was clear and unambiguous, so recourse to external evidence was not permissible to vary its terms. Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 operates only where the language is plain but unmeaning in relation to existing facts, and it must be read consistently with Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which excludes oral evidence that would contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the written terms. As the agreement did not create a licence in respect of the premises, the Bombay Rent Act was not attracted and the civil court's jurisdiction was not ousted.

Conclusion: The agreement was held to be an arrangement for continuation of business and not a leave-and-licence of the premises; the High Court's reliance on extrinsic evidence was held to be erroneous; and the decree in favour of the appellant was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a written contract is clear and unambiguous, its terms cannot be varied by extrinsic evidence, and the document must be construed according to its plain meaning; section 95 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to override the prohibition in section 92.

---