Courts can draw adverse presumption on credibility when party fails to appear for Cross-Examination: Delhi HC [Read Order]

New Delhi: In a pivotal ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the eviction petition filed by a landlord, Ajay Bhatia, against his tenant, Jitender, in a commercial property dispute. The case centers around a leased property in New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, which was initially rented for residential purposes but is now sought by the landlord to establish a restaurant business for his son.

Despite the tenant’s decision not to lead evidence at the trial stage and his failure to enter the witness box, the Rent Controller had initially dismissed the eviction petition.  The tenant’s refusal to provide evidence or appear for cross-examination significantly weakened his position, undermining his ability to substantiate his claims.

According to the Delhi High Court, the tenant’s challenge to the landlord’s bona fide requirement was not substantiated or proven due to this lack of participation.

The court noted a significant procedural aspect, stating “On 05.08.2017, the Respondent/tenant submitted before the learned Trial Court that Respondent/tenant does not wish to lead his evidence.” Despite this non-participation by the tenant at the trial stage, the Rent Controller had dismissed the landlord’s eviction petition.

Addressing the legal implications of the tenant’s non-appearance, the Court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Ors., which establishes that when a party does not enter the witness box or offer themselves for cross-examination, an adverse presumption regarding their case’s credibility can be drawn. 

The Court found merit in the landlord’s argument that any challenge to his bonafide requirement by the tenant remained unsubstantiated due to the tenant’s failure to appear in the witness box. Justice Ganju observed that the Rent Controller should have drawn an adverse inference against the tenant for this non-appearance.

On examining the availability of alternate accommodation, the Court found that Flat No. 4, being on the top floor, was not suitable for running a restaurant business. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Uday Shankar Upadhyay v. Naveen Maheshwari, which established that courts cannot dictate to landlords which floor they should use for business.

The High Court concluded that the landlord had successfully proved all requirements under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, including the existence of bonafide need and non-availability of suitable alternate accommodation.

In the High Court’s ruling, Justice Ganju emphasized that the landlord had demonstrated a genuine, bona fide need for the premises. The court found that the landlord’s son, Prateek Bhatia, intended to use the property for starting a restaurant business, which would be most viable on the ground floor. The High Court rejected the tenant’s claim that there was suitable alternate accommodation available for the landlord. The Court underscored that the sufficiency of accommodation depends on various factors, including the landlord’s personal and professional needs, which in this case, were clearly unmet with the current arrangement.

As a result, the High Court set aside the Rent Controller’s dismissal of the eviction petition and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within six months, in accordance with Section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The landlord, Ajay Bhatia, was represented by Senior Advocate Akshay Makhija Briefed by Advocates Prateek Kr. Srivastava and Surjeet Singh Malhotra from Ares Law Offices.

This judgment underscores the importance of presenting a robust case in landlord-tenant disputes, highlighting the necessity of evidence and cross-examination in contesting eviction petitions.

[Read Order]