https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463185 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. en-us Fri, 07 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 06:44:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463185 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463185