It is therefore necessary to find out whether the suit premises were closed and not in use for the purpose for which they were let out since 28/10/2005. The plaintiffs have relied upon the information furnished by B.E.S.T at Exhibit 41. They have also called upon the defendants to produce the documents mentioned in letter at Exhibit 53. By that letter, D.W.1 was called upon to produce on record income tax return, sales tax return, profession tax receipt, purchase vouchers, payment receipts, electricity bills and bank account. Admittedly, defendants did not produce these documents. Defendants contended that electricity meter installed in the suit premises was not in a working condition and the same did not record the consumption of the electricity in the suit premises. The learned trial Judge observed in paragraph 29 that defendants did not bring any evidence on record to show that the meter was faulty. The learned trial Judge also observed that the units consumed between 13/10/2005 and 15/12/2005 were 54. On 16/08/2006, consumption were 198. Whereas, from 15/12/2005 to 15/02/2006, there was no consumption at all.
