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

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 1119 · Decided: 02-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 12 S.C.R. 1119 
V.N. BHARAT 
v. 
D.D.A. AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1373 of 2006) 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 
• ~ 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872: s.114(f) - Presumption as to ser-
vice - Demand letter allegedly issued by DOA - Receipt of, 
denied by the allottee - Held: Presumption under s.114(f) is c 
rebuttable presumption - On denial of receipt, al/ottee dis-
charged his onus - Onus shifted to DOA to prove service, 
which it failed to discharge. 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: 
Unfair trade practice - Allotment of flat - Cancellation of, on D 
:._ 
account of non-compliance of demand letter - Restoration of 
., 
allotment demanding fresh allotment charges - Challenge 
against - Held: ODA failed to prove that service of demand 
notice was effected on the allottee - Therefore original allot-
ment continued - Restoration of allotment would not amount E 
to fresh or new allotment - Hence, demand of fresh allotment 
charges amounted to unfair trade practice. 
Appellant applied for the allotment of SFS flats. In 
terms of the Scheme, the first four instalments were to be 
paid after every six months and for the fifth and final in-
F 
stalment, fresh demand letter was to be issued separately. 
The appellant paid the first four instalments and was al-
lotted a specific flat. 
Respondent-DOA issued a show cause notice ask-
G 
ing appellant to explain as to why he had failed to make 
payment of Rs.1,63,512/-, towards the fifth and final install-
ment. Without replying to the show-cause notice, the 
appellant informed the DOA that he had never received 
1119 
H 
1120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
A any d~mand letter from the DOA for making payment of 
the fifth and final installment. The appellant accordingly, 
requested the ODA to issue a demand letter indicating the 
amount of the fifth instalment so that he could take over 
possession of the flat. Subsequently, on 8.5.1998, the 
B appellant received a letter from the DOA dated 22.4.1998, 
informing him that a demand letter had been issued on 
11.9.1996. According to the appellant, the said letter was 
never tendered to him, rather in the letter dated 22.4.1998, 
sent by DOA it was stated that anothe! demand letter was 
c in process and would be issued in due course. 
Appellant, however on 6.5.1998 had paid the fifth and 
final instaflment to the DOA by a pay-ord.er for a sum of 
Rs.1,63,512/-, being the amount mentioned in the show 
cause notice dated 10.9.1997, even prior to the receipt of 
D the DDA's letter dated 22.4.1998 on 8.5.1998. 
Thereafter, on 26.5.1998, the appellant filed a com-
plaint against DOA-respondent under s.36(8) and s.12-A 
of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 
E 1969, before the Commission alleging unfair trade prac-
tice by the DOA on various grounds, and praying for reg-
istration of the sale deed by the ODA in his favour. 
The Commission held that the all.egations of unfair 
trade practice on the part of the respondent-DOA, was not 
F proved. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Except for the statutory presumption un-
der s.114(f) of the Evidence Act, there is no other material 
G to suggest that the demand notice had actually been re-
ceived by the appellant. The assertion of service of no-
tice on account of such presumption has been denied by 
the appellant as a result whereof onus of proving service 
shifted back to the respondent. The respondent-ODA has 
H not led any other evidence in support of the presumption 
Y-,. 
I 
>: 
V.N. BHARAT v. D.D.A. AND ANR. 
1121 
of service. In such circumstances, it has to be held that A 
such service had not been effected. Therefore, when on 
the appellant's application for restoration of the allotment, 
the allotment was restored, the only conclusion that can 
be arrived at is that the earlier allotment continued as no 
cancellation and/or termination had, in fact, taken place B 
in terms of the Scheme. [Paras 18, 19] [1130,D-G] 
1.2. There is no definite finding by the Commission 
on the question of service of the demand notice. On the 
other hand, the Commission presumed that the appellant 
must have had knowledge of the allotment which had been C 
widely publicised in leading newspapers. According to 
the Commission, it was for the appellant to have made 
inquiries relating to completion of the construction and it 
should have waited for a demand notice to have been sent 
to him.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.