months immediately preceding the date of institution of the suit. Plaintiff examined witness from Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company to show Nil consumption of electricity at the suit premises during the relevant time. Though, the Defendant sought to question the genuineness of the electronic computer printout produced by the said witness by contending that the Certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act was produced, at the same time, the Defendant himself did not produce the electricity bills in respect of the concerned period. Defendant thus withheld vital evidence from the Court and created vague doubts about the evidence produced by the Plaintiff. Though another vague defence was raised that the electricity meter was faulty and was tampered with, no evidence is led to prove filing of any complaint with the Electricity Distribution Company about alleged tampering of the electricity meter. Considering the overall conduct of the Defendant, necessary inference was required to be drawn on the basis of evidence produced by the Plaintiff that the electricity consumption at the suit premises was almost Nil during the relevant period from March to August 2012. Defendant has also admitted that he used to visit his native place at Uttar Pradesh which also appears to be one of the reasons why the suit premises are kept locked reflecting zero consumption of electricity.
