Oral plea of extension cannot override written contract terms; suit for recovery barred after three-year lease expiry.

The Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) entered into a lease deed dated 25.04.2009 with M/s. Raghavendra Enterprises (represented by the Appellant and deceased Defendant No. 2) to lease out his cable TV network business, including equipment and 574 subscribers.

The lease was for a three-year term from 01.05.2009 to 30.04.2012 at a monthly rent of ₹35,000/-.

The Plaintiff alleged that after the lease expired, the Defendants orally agreed to extend the lease and failed to pay rent after April 2012.

The Plaintiff issued a termination notice on 14.11.2016 and filed the suit in 2017.

The Commercial Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding arrears, damages, and ordering the return of the business.

The Appellant challenged this on the grounds of limitation and lack of evidence regarding the lease extension.

1. Whether the suit filed by the Plaintiff in 2017 for claims arising out of a lease deed that expired in 2012 was barred by the law of limitation?

2. Whether there was a valid oral agreement to extend the lease beyond the stipulated period of 30.04.2012?

3. Whether the Plaintiff proved the entitlement to damages and the continued possession of the business by the Defendants?

Article 52 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period for the recovery of arrears of rent from the date they become due.

Article 55 of the Limitation Act regarding compensation for breach of contract (three years from the date of breach) and Article 113 for general suits where no period is provided (three years from when the right to sue accrues).

Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that oral evidence cannot be admitted to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract.

The Court found that the lease deed expressly expired on 30.04.2012.

Under Section 92 of the Evidence Act, the Plaintiff's claim of an oral extension was legally unsustainable as it sought to modify a written agreement without documentary proof.

Evidence indicated that the "control room" of the business had been shifted to the Plaintiff's own residence by 2013, suggesting the Defendants were no longer in exclusive control.

Since the Defendants stopped paying rent after April 2012, the cause of action for recovery of rent and assets accrued on 01.05.2012.

Consequently, the suit filed in 2017 (O.S. No. 93/2017) was significantly beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Articles 52 and 55 of the Limitation Act.

The Court noted that the Commercial Court's award of ₹50,000/- per month in damages lacked any evidentiary basis or consideration of equipment depreciation.

The Court set aside the Commercial Court’s judgment and decree dated 04.09.2025. The appeal was allowed, effectively dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit for recovery of rent, damages, and business assets.