Presumption of service by registered post was upheld where bare denial failed to rebut receipt of demand notice.

Service of a demand notice sent by registered post to the correct address is presumed proved when posting is properly evidenced, including an acknowledgment card and prior receipt of notices at the same address. A tenant's bare denial of receipt, especially where signature variations weaken credibility, does not rebut that statutory presumption. The text also states that notice to quit may be sent by post and service is complete upon such dispatch. On that basis, service was treated as established and the tenant remained exposed to eviction for non-payment of arrears within the prescribed period.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the demand notice sent by registered post was proved and whether the tenant's denial displaced the statutory presumption, so as to avoid eviction for arrears of rent.

Analysis: The notice was sent to the correct address by registered post acknowledgment due, and earlier notices sent to the same address had been admitted to have been received. The acknowledgment card was on record, and the tenant's proprietor had used different signatures on different documents, weakening the denial of receipt. The Court applied the presumption of service arising from proper posting and held that a bare denial, unsupported by credible evidence, did not rebut that presumption. The Court also referred to the statutory position that notice to quit may be sent by post and that service is complete when the notice is so sent.

Conclusion: Service of notice was proved, the presumption of service was not rebutted, and the tenant remained liable to eviction for failure to pay the arrears within the prescribed period.

---