IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Interpretation of contract - Construction of a deed is a matter of law - However, when there is ambiguity in deed, determining its meaning is a mixed question of fact and law.
(2) Oral evidence - Evidence to vary terms of an agreement in writing is not admissible, but evidence to show that there is no agreement in first place is admissible.
(3) Rights of lessor and lessee - Law recognises both ownership and possession of owner of a property - Receipts evidencing payment of royalty would militate against status of deemed tenancy.

JUDGMENT

(S.V.N. BHATTI, J.)

1. The Civil Appeal arises from the Order dated 16.07.2018 in Civil Revision Application No. 247 of 2016 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (“Impugned Order”), confirming the Judgment dated 17.08.2015 in appeal No. 547 of 2004 of the appellate bench. The Judgment dated 17.08.2015 reversed the judgment and decree dated 20/22.03.2004 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 defendant continued as lessee of the Plaint Schedule. The first defendant was running a hotel under the name and style of “Shri Samarthashraya Vishranti Graha” (“the Hotel”). The first defendant, after the demise of her husband, ran the business for some time. But she was unable to run it successfully, so she allowed her brother ‘Namdev Morye’, to continue running the Hotel. The said arrangement did not prove to be advantageous to the first defendant. With this background, the plaintiff claims to have stepped in the Plaint Schedule and that, on 16.08.1967, an agreement styled for conducting hotel business was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The said arrangement was continued under subsequent agreements between the plaintiff and the first defendant. On 28.02.1997, the first defendant served notice to the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the business being run in the Plaint Schedule. With the above development, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs noted above.

3. The averments in the plaint are elaborate; commensurate to the detailed plaint, the written statement is equally elaborate. To wit, the plaint runs into eight pages, and the written statement is sixteen pages long. The resultant consequence is that, in the trial, much oral evidence is brought on record, resulting in a lengthy judgment by the trial court. The judgment of the appellate bench is equally lengthy, even though the core issue for consideration could have been captured in a nutshell by the appellate bench. A judgment should be coherent, systematic, and logically organised. It should enable the reader to trace the facts to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles¹[Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 20 SCC 818]. Lately, this Court has been experiencing meandering pleadings irrespective of the nature of the dispute. We are reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s ode to a lawyer friend – “[h]e can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met.” Such lengthy pleadings would even upset Polonius from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Every word that is not a help is a hindrance because it distracts. A reader who realizes that a brief is wordy will skim it; one who finds a brief terse and concise will read every word.²[Scalia & B. Garner, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, pp. 81 (2008) Ch-35]. The parties to a suit ought not to compel the court to exercise i