AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 in R.A.D. Suit No. 1860 of 1997 before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The LRs of the plaintiff are appellant nos. 1.1 to 1.4 in the Civil Appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the deemed tenant/protected licensee of the first defendant in terms of section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, as enforced from 01.02.1973 ("Bombay Rent Act"), for shop nos. 5 and 6, Shri Samarthashraya Vishranti Graha, Nanabhai Court, Dr. Babasahib Ambdedkar Marg, Hindmata Junction, Dadar, Bombay-400014 (for short, 'the Plaint Schedule'). The plaintiff also prayed for a restraint order against the defendants from interfering with or dispossessing the plaintiff from the Plaint Schedule. The suit was filed against Laxmibai Narayan Satose/defendant no. 1, and M.S. Nanabhoy/defendant no. 2. The plaintiff pleads that the first defendant is the landlady, and through her, the plaintiff claims a right of declaration as noted above. Admittedly, the second defendant is the owner of the Plaint Schedule. The Plaint Schedule was under a lease with the husband of the first defendant, and after the original tenant's demise, the first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught not to compel the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and strike out unnecessary or frivolous pleadings. The effort of pleading and evidence should be to be concise to the cause and must not confuse the cause. The lengthy pleadings and avoidable evidence are well within the scrutiny of trial courts, and, at the right stage, must be regulated within four corners of the law. Such an approach by trial courts would like a stitch in time, save nine. Long and drawn-out pleadings will run the risk of having a cascading effect on the appellate and revisional courts. Meandering pleadings will land up with laden weight in SLPs, making the narrative difficult. The time has come for courts to invoke the jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 16 and make litigation workable. Courts are also confronted with AI-generated or computer-generated statements. While technology is useful in enhancing efficiency and efficacy, the placid pleadings will disorient the cause in a case. It is time that the approach to pleadings is re-invented and re-introduced to be brief and precise. Having remarked on the need for brevity, we have a task on hand to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deemed tenant of the Plaint Schedule. 6. The trial court answered the substantial issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the first defendant. The gist of the reasoning and findings is that the plaintiff is a licensee and not a mere conductor of the business of the first defendant. The trial court held that it depends on the nature and quality of the plaintiff's occupation of the suit premises and not on the mere nomenclature of the agreement dated 16.08.1967. The trial court, while referring to various clauses of the agreement dated 16.08.1967, held that: 6.1 Clause I of this agreement denotes that the owner has granted the plaintiff leave and licence to use and occupy the hotel premises. 6.2 Clause III of the agreement indicates that in consideration of the leave and licence, the conductor shall pay the owner for the first 5 periods each of 11 months royalty at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month before the 5th of subsequent months. 6.3 Clauses I and III of the agreement clearly show that in consideration of Rs. 1000/- per month, defendant no. 1 granted leave and licence in favour of the plaintiff to use and occupy the hotel premises. 6.4 Clause IV of the said a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agreement dated 16.08.1967 in its entirety and reversed the judgement and decree of the trial court. The appellate bench examined the scope and object of sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the bar on parties to an agreement to adduce oral evidence contrary to the clauses in a written agreement. The appellate bench held that the contemporaneous agreement through which the plaintiff secured permission to enter into the Plaint Schedule is a plain agreement to conduct the business of the first defendant and not a leave and license of premises in favour of the plaintiff. The appellate bench found that the trial court failed to interpret relevant clauses in the agreement that pointed to the arrangement as one of leave and license. The appellate bench appreciated the consideration received by the first defendant between March 1967 and September 1973, i.e., 99 receipts evidencing receipt and payment of royalty for conducting the business. The appellate bench heavily relied on these royalty receipts as evidence supporting the existence of conducting agreements for running the hotel business rather than a simple leave and license arrangement. Further, it pointed out that the tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d reliance on the reasoning adopted by the trial court and contrasted the interpretation adopted by the appellate bench and High Court, on a plain reading of agreement dated 16.08.1967, as erroneous. It is argued that the nomenclature of a deed is not the determinative circumstance of the status, rights, duties, or obligations undertaken by the parties to a deed. From the evidence on record, with considerable force, it is argued that the entrustment of the Plaint Schedule to the plaintiff is not that of an ongoing business, but that of a lessee-licensee. The agreement must be understood in its letter and spirit, as well as the right with which the plaintiff is enjoying the Plaint Schedule. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on Provash Chandra Dalui and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another [(1989) Suppl 1 SCC 487] for the proposition that the best interpretation of the contract is to be made from the context, and it is to be construed with reference to its object and the whole of its terms. Further, he relies on Chandavarka Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guaram [(1986) 4 SCC 447] to interpret Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act to contend that a valid pre1973 license conv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he crux of the agreement dated 16.08.1967, the schedule of items entrusted to the plaintiff for running the business would be important. 13.1 Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar also relies on Mangala Vaman Karandikar vs. Prakash Damodar Ranadeon [(2021) 6 SCC 139] to delineate the scope and ambit of sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872. According to him, the Three-Judge Bench judgement in Mangala Vaman Karandikar (supra) squarely governs the situation, and oral evidence ought not to be examined to interpret the agreement dated 16.08.1967 and the subsequent agreements. 14. Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel, appears for respondent no. 3, a subsequent purchaser from defendant no. 2, and supports the plaintiff. The arguments of Shri Vinay Navare are not adverted to as the second defendant did not participate before the trial court or the appellate bench. In the subject Civil Appeal, we are not enquiring into or adverting to the stance of respondent no. 3 vis-a-vis the other parties to the litigation. The available contentions of respondent no. 3 are left open for consideration in an appropriate proceeding. 15. We have taken note of the arguments addressed by the learned Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms; Proviso (1): Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law: Proviso (2): The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document: Proviso (3): The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved. Proviso (4): The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reduce the terms and conditions into writing. NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS UNDER: 1. That the Owner does hereby give to the Conductor and the Conductor doth hereby take accordingly for conducting the said business concerned viz. the said Hotel business of the Owner carried on under the name and style of "Shri Samarthashraya Vishranti Graha" at the above said premises and for the purpose of carrying on the said business, the said Hotel premises and to use fittings and fixtures and furniture and other accessories (more particularly described in the Schedule annexed herto under) for the period and upon the terms and conditions herein after contained. 2. xxx xxx xxx 3. In consideration of the leave and license the Conductor shall pay to the owner for the first five periods each of eleven months Royalty at the rate of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) every month on or before the 5th of the subsequent month. The Conductor agrees that for the sixth, seventh and eighth period of eleven months each, the Conductor agrees that for the sixth, seventh and eighth period of eleven months each, the Conductor shall pay to 'the Owner a higher amount of Roy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." (Emphasis supplied) 20. The plaintiff, contrary to the clauses under which the plaintiff has taken over the Hotel run in the Plaint Schedule, pleads the relationship of tenant/subtenant as having been given under leave and license. 21. The construction of the excerpted clauses can be summed up thus: a. The nomenclature is an agreement of conducting. b. The parties to the agreement are referred to as owner and conductor. c. The parties agree on the ownership of the hotel business known as 'Shri Samarthashraya Vishranti Graha.' d. The owner has been carrying on the hotel business in the Plaint Schedule. e. The owner desires to give the business on a conducting basis, and the conductor has agreed to take the business upon the terms and conditions set out therein. Clause 1 specifically refers to the owner giving to the conductor, and the conductor agreeing to take for conducting the business. That is, the said hotel business of the owner carried on under the name and style of Shri Samarthashraya Vishranti Graha at the aforesaid premises. The owner thus granted to the conductor to use and occupy the said hotel premises - including ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of a deemed tenant. The first and foremost document relied on is the registration certificate under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The plaintiff, as conductor of the business, has assumed the responsibility for the incidences of running the business. This includes payment of sales tax as well. Including the subject business in the dealership of the plaintiff would not materially alter the position under the agreement dated 16.08.1967. Further, a photocopy of the registration certificate is exhibited before this Court. We are convinced that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said photocopy of the registration certificate will not change the status of the plaintiff from the conductor of the business to a sub-tenant and, by operation of law, a deemed tenant. Similarly, the receipts evidencing payment of royalty would militate against the status of deemed tenancy claimed by the plaintiff. As noted earlier, sections 91 and 92 are substantive provisions under the Evidence Act, 1872. Unless and until the case falls under one or the other exceptions enabling receipt of oral evidence on a written document, the court is precluded from entertaining oral evidence. The document o....