Rebuttal of service presumption defeats automatic cancellation where demand notice was not proved to be delivered.

The statutory presumption of service under section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was rebuttable, and once the allottee denied receipt of the registered demand notice, the burden shifted to the authority to prove actual service by cogent evidence. No further material was produced, so service was not proved and the automatic cancellation contemplated by the allotment scheme could not operate. The restoration of the allotment was therefore not a fresh allotment but a continuation of the original allotment, and the authority could not demand a revised amount on that basis. The finding on unfair trade practice was also sustained, and relief remained with the allottee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand notice for the fifth and final instalment was proved to have been served on the allottee, and whether the alleged non-payment could justify cancellation of the allotment and treatment of the later restoration as a fresh allotment.

Analysis: The statutory presumption of service under section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was rebuttable. Once service of the registered demand letter was denied, the burden shifted back to the authority to establish actual service by cogent evidence. No further material was produced to prove delivery of the notice. In the absence of proved service, the consequence contemplated by the scheme, namely automatic cancellation for non-compliance, could not operate. The restoration of the allotment, therefore, did not create a fresh allotment but continued the original allotment, and the authority was not justified in demanding a revised amount on that basis.

Conclusion: The notice of demand was not proved to have been served, the allotment was not validly cancelled, and the restoration could not be treated as a fresh allotment. The finding against the authority on unfair trade practice was sustained, and relief was granted in favour of the allottee.

---