![]() The respondent wanted the contract to be read as a Leave and License Agreement based on the extrinsic evidence covered under Bombay Rent Act.The respondent said that the meaning of the document must not be culled solely with reference to the language used but extrinsic evidence must be utilized before adducing the proper meaning of the contract.The SC said that the contract stated that the parties had intended to transfer the business from the appellant to the respondent during the contract period and was not meant as a lease or license for the respondent to conduct any business.The Respondent's reply aggrieved the Appellant after which she filed a civil suit in 1981 in the court of Joint Civil Judge in Junior Division of Pune.The Respondent replied that the sale of the business was incidental rather the contract was a rent agreement stricto sensu.It was at this time that she issued the Respondent a notice dated 20th December 1980, requesting the premises to be vacated by January 31, 1981. The contract was extended again and in the 1980's the appellant decided that she could run her husband's business again and was then ready to accept the profession. This all was entered into an agreement dated February 7th, 1963. ![]() ![]() After his death the appellant carried out the business for a while and when she could not lead the life of a business woman she decided to allow the Respondent to run the business for sometime. ![]() In the beginning, the appellant's husband ran a business of stationery named Karandikar Brothers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |