https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468066 A written agreement described the parties as owner and conductor, provided for conduct of the hotel business on a royalty basis, barred delegation, required the conductor to bear operating expenses and wages, and required return of charge on termination. On that construction, the absence of any transfer of possession of the premises showed a conducting arrangement rather than a lease or leave and license. Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act prevented oral evidence from contradicting the written terms, and ancillary receipts or tax registration could not change the agreement's legal character. The result was that deemed tenancy under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act was unavailable. en-us Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:22:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468066 A written agreement described the parties as owner and conductor, provided for conduct of the hotel business on a royalty basis, barred delegation, required the conductor to bear operating expenses and wages, and required return of charge on termination. On that construction, the absence of any transfer of possession of the premises showed a conducting arrangement rather than a lease or leave and license. Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act prevented oral evidence from contradicting the written terms, and ancillary receipts or tax registration could not change the agreement's legal character. The result was that deemed tenancy under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act was unavailable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468066