V.N. BHARAT versus D.D.A. AND ANR.

V.N. BHARAT versus D.D.A. AND ANR.

The presumption of service under s.114(f) of the Evidence Act is rebuttable. Since the appellant denied receipt of the demand notice and the respondent failed to prove service by other means, the notice cannot be deemed to have been delivered. Thus, the original allotment continued and restoration did not amount to fresh allotment. Demanding fresh allotment charges in such circumstances amounted to unfair trade practice.

Parties
Appellant: V.N. Bharat; Respondent: Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of MRTP Commission
Outcome
Appeal allowed; MRTP Commission order set aside.
Legal Topics
Unfair Trade Practice, Allotment of Flats, Presumption of Service, Restoration of Allotment
Consumer Protection Administrative Law Unfair Trade Practice Allotment of Flats Presumption of Service Restoration of Allotment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V.N. Bharat

Appellant

Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) and Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of MRTP Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption under s.114(f) of Evidence Act regarding service of demand notice was rebutted by the appellant
  2. 2 Whether restoration of the original allotment amounted to a fresh allotment attracting fresh charges
  3. 3 Whether demand for fresh allotment charges amounted to unfair trade practice

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of service under s.114(f) of the Evidence Act is rebuttable. Since the appellant denied receipt of the demand notice and the respondent failed to prove service by other means, the notice cannot be deemed to have been delivered. Thus, the original allotment continued and restoration did not amount to fresh allotment. Demanding fresh allotment charges in such circumstances amounted to unfair trade practice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; MRTP Commission order set aside.

Orders

  • Respondents to accept the sum of Rs.1,63,512/- deposited by the appellant together with interest, as full and final settlement for the flat.
  • Respondents to hand over possession of the flat to the appellant within a month from receipt of the order.