Harish has premises situated in Shastri nagar where he operates his business which he has

leased from Rashid for Rs 10000 per month since January 2016. The agreement of lease
specifies that the rent shall be increased at the rate of 11% every year and it shall be payable
to Rashid at every six months. The agreement between the two parties has been going without
any interruption and there has been no default on the part of Harish even once. Harish in this
year-mid had paid Rs.60000 at the end of June and Rs.60000 further in the end of 2016
December. However, Harish lost the case he was fighting against his wife for maintenance
and had to pay substantial amount to his wife as maintenance. This put him in financial
difficulties which got aggravated owing to his depression due to which he could not conduct
his business properly. He needed money to buy more equipment’s for his business for which
he needed every singly money. He asked the landlord Rashid to save him off paying the
increased rent atleast for this year. Rashid agreed to his request and said OK I will let you off
paying the increased rent this year. As June approached Harish paid Rs. 60000 as rent. Rashid
called him to make a further payment of Rs 6600. Harish resisted relying on the oral
communication between both of them to which Rashid said the signed lease document
specifies that the rent will go up every year.
Whether Harish would be liable to pay increased rent and would the lease document
supersede the oral communication.

Kunal is extremely fond of bird watching and take trips for bird watching 5 times in a year.
While he goes for bird watching in remote corners of the country where normal cars or other
transport cannot go. He also does off-roading trips whenever he goes for such bird-watching
trips. He has specifically bought Pajero SUV for his off-roading trips and has customised the
car to run on off - terrains and mountains and on rocky surfaces. For this his car needs special
types of shock absorbers so that his can remain stable on rocky surfaces. His car had been on
one of such expeditions and now needs revamping. He calls a dealer who deals in such shock
absorbers. A girl called Amanda Picks up the phone. Kunal says to Amanda that he needs
special type of four shock absorbers for his SUV which can help in off-roading. Amanda
opens the brochure of the company which was published by the manufacturer of shock
absorbers and mentioned that E-22 can be sued for this purpose which costs around 20,000
each. He gives his SUV for instalment of shock absorbers and takes it for a drive to a rocky
surface where his SUV breaks down completely. On inspection, his total loss valuation came
out around 10 lakh. It turns out that E-22 were not fit for shock absorbers for such purposes.
Amanda had opened the wrong page of the brochure owing to which such a thing happened.
Had she looked at the correct page such loss could have been avoided. Kunal filed a suit for
damages for breaching the contract. Amanda on the other hand claimed the contract to be
void owing to mistake. Who do you think would succeed?

P.S. : Assume there is no role of misrepresentation in this particular scenario.