Once A Party Abstains From Entering Witness Box To Prove His Case, A Presumption Arises That His Claims Are Not True : Gauhati High Court

Tenant Who Fails to Prove Rent Payment Cannot Avoid Eviction by Pleading Mere Deposits in Court  — In a latest judgment Gauhati High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of default, eviction, and compensation against the legal heirs of a tenant, holding that once the trial court has recorded a reasoned conclusion of default in rent payment, the High Court cannot reappreciate facts under revisional jurisdiction.

Justice Robin Phukan held that the petitioners, as substituted legal heirs of the deceased tenant, failed to adduce any evidence in support of their claims and abstained from cross-examining the landlord’s witnesses, thereby inviting adverse inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that when default is proved through evidence and remains unrebutted due to absence of tenant’s testimony, eviction is inevitable under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.

“Landlord is the Best Judge of Suitability of Premises” — Bonafide Requirement Upheld Even Without Framing Specific Issue

“A genuine and honest need for commercial expansion, if credibly established, cannot be denied for lack of formal framing of issue” — Justice Robin Phukan

Rejecting the challenge that no issue was framed on bonafide requirement, the High Court reaffirmed that a landlord’s genuine and bona fide requirement need not be separately framed as an issue if the facts are pleaded and proved. The plaintiff, who required the premises to establish a commercial automobile dealership for his wife and son, was found to have substantiated the claim by Exhibits 6 and 7, and oral testimony.

The Court applied the settled position laid down in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chandra Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222, observing that:

“A bona fide requirement refers to a sincere, real, and honest need — not a pretence. The judge must place himself in the landlord’s position and determine if the need is genuine. Once that threshold is crossed, the landlord’s decision must be respected.”

The Court noted that the tenant’s heirs failed to rebut this claim, and therefore, the landlord’s need for the premises remained unchallenged and duly established.

Eviction Decree Not Affected by Later Government Acquisition of Land — High Court Rejects Challenge Based on Post-Decree Notification

“Decrees must be tested on the date of their pronouncement — subsequent land acquisition has no retrospective invalidating effect” — Justice Robin Phukan

Another central issue raised in the revision petition was that the suit property had been acquired by the State of Assam under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 through a notification dated 28 May 2025. The petitioners argued that such acquisition extinguished the landlord’s title and rendered the eviction decree unenforceable.

The High Court dismissed this plea outright, holding that:

“The judgment and decree passed on 05.12.2020 and affirmed on 07.11.2022 preceded the acquisition notification. There is no retrospective application of the said notification. The legality, propriety, and correctness of the judgments must be assessed as on the date of their pronouncement.”

Referring to Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das (2018) 2 SCC 352, the Court reiterated that only the landlord and tenant are necessary parties in a tenancy suit. The State of Assam, even after subsequent acquisition, does not become a necessary party to ongoing or concluded tenancy litigation.

“Pleadings Are Not Proof” — High Court Applies Adverse Inference Against Legal Heirs of Tenant Who Failed to Enter Witness Box

The Court recorded that after the demise of the original tenant, Premendu Shekhar Banerjee, his wife and sons were brought on record but chose not to contest the suit effectively. Despite filing written statements, they never entered the witness box, nor did they cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses.

This led the Court to invoke the principle from Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573:

“Where a party does not enter the witness box or offer himself to be cross-examined, a presumption arises that the case set up by him is not correct.”

Relying on this principle, the Court concluded that the defence of timely rent payments — whether by cheque or court deposits — remained unproven. The plaintiffs’ witnesses deposed without being challenged, and the burden to prove that rent was properly paid under Section 5(4) of the Rent Control Act was not discharged.

Justice Phukan noted:

“A tenant can claim protection from eviction only when rent is paid or deposited in accordance with the Act. In the case at hand, not a single scrap of evidence has been led to prove deposit or refusal by the landlord.”

Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Casually Pleaded to Oust Civil Jurisdiction — No Serious Invocation, No Bar

The petitioners argued that Clause 7 of the original lease agreement contained an arbitration clause and that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the High Court found that the arbitration plea was never seriously pursued and was raised vaguely in the written statement without any application or invocation of the arbitration mechanism.

Justice Phukan held:

“A dormant arbitration clause cannot bar the jurisdiction of the civil court when the party fails to take steps at the appropriate stage. The parties' conduct clearly indicated that they submitted to the jurisdiction of the civil court.”

The argument was rejected as an afterthought, especially in a case where the tenant chose not to participate in trial proceedings.

Trial Court’s Award of ₹2000/day Compensation Not Restored as Appellate Reduction to ₹500/day Held Reasonable

While the trial court had awarded compensation at ₹2,000 per day for unauthorized occupation from 31 March 2010, the appellate court reduced the amount to ₹500 per day, terming the original sum as “high in degree.” The landlord, aggrieved by this reduction, filed Civil Revision Petition No. 81 of 2023.

Justice Phukan, however, found no reason to interfere with the appellate court’s discretion, holding that:

“Though brief, the appellate court has assigned a reason for reducing compensation, and this cannot be termed as arbitrary. Judicial orders need reasons — not volumes.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the landlord’s challenge, affirming that the reduced compensation was adequate under the circumstances and within the appellate court’s discretion.

With detailed reasoning rooted in established legal precedent, the Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a tenant’s protection under rent control laws is contingent upon good faith compliance with statutory obligations. In a tenancy governed by written agreement, oral defences unsupported by evidence or testimony cannot be entertained.

The judgment lays down several key propositions:

• Failure to prove timely rent payment renders a tenant liable for eviction.

• The landlord’s bona fide need, once pleaded and proved, cannot be invalidated by procedural technicalities.

• Civil court jurisdiction is not ousted by the mere existence of an arbitration clause unless properly invoked.

• Post-decree government acquisition does not vitiate earlier eviction orders.

• Revisional jurisdiction does not extend to reappreciation of facts unless there is manifest illegality or perversity.

Justice Robin Phukan’s decision underscores that civil litigation is governed by pleadings, proof, and procedural fidelity — not by retrospective developments or vague objections.

Date of Decision: 22 October 2025