SECTION 92 DOES NOT APPLY WHEN A DOCUMENT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND PRESENTS NO DIFFICULT - SC

9th May 2021

An SC bench held that proviso 6 of Section 92 does not apply when a document is straightforward and presents no difficulty construing it.

FACTS

Appellant’s husband was running a business, “Karandikar Brothers”, before his demise in 1962. After his demise, she continued the business for some time. After a while, she decided to let the Respondent run the same for some time. Time after time, the contract was duly extended. In the 1980s, the appellant issued a notice requesting the Respondent to vacate the premises. The Respondent replied that the sale of the business was incidental rather;, the contract was a rent agreement stricto sensu. Accordingly, the Trial Court ordered the respondent to hand over the suit property. The Respondent filed an Appeal before the HC of Bombay. The Bombay HC held that the Respondent had entered into a license agreement covered under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act. Hence, an Appeal before the SC.

DECISION

It is clear from the reading of the contract that the parties had intended to transfer business from appellant to respondent during the contractual period and not a lease or license. Section 92 specifically prohibits evidence of any oral agreement which would contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its terms. Oral evidence could be received to show that the terms of the document were really different from those expressed therein. It would amount to permission to give evidence to contradict or vary those terms. As such, it comes within the inhibitions of Section 92. Accordingly, the Apex court set aside the High Court judgment.

Author - Papiha Ghoshal