https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468066 A written hotel agreement was construed from its terms as a whole and held to be a conducting arrangement, not a leave and licence of the premises. The document described the parties as owner and conductor, fixed royalty as consideration, limited the conductor to the owner's hotel business, barred transfer to third parties, required return of fixtures on termination, and contained no transfer of possession. Because the deed was clear and unambiguous, sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act barred oral evidence from varying its legal character. The absence of any possession clause was treated as significant, and deemed tenancy under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act was not available. en-us Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:22:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468066 A written hotel agreement was construed from its terms as a whole and held to be a conducting arrangement, not a leave and licence of the premises. The document described the parties as owner and conductor, fixed royalty as consideration, limited the conductor to the owner's hotel business, barred transfer to third parties, required return of fixtures on termination, and contained no transfer of possession. Because the deed was clear and unambiguous, sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act barred oral evidence from varying its legal character. The absence of any possession clause was treated as significant, and deemed tenancy under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act was not available. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468066