(1.) By this judgment, four appeals are being disposed of as they involve identical facts and issues, and have been disposed of by identical impugned judgments. For the sake of convenience, reference is being made to the facts in RFA No. 381/2003.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery of Rs. 3,12,321/ - against the respondent/defendant. The suit is for recovery of the amount which was given to the respondent/landlord as security deposit at the time of entering into the tenancy. The recovery is claimed inasmuch as tenancy had come to an end and since there were no dues of the appellant/plaintiff towards the respondent/defendant/landlord the security deposit was to be paid back by the respondent/defendant.
(3.) The subject suit has been dismissed by holding that the plaintiff has no locus standi to seek recovery of deposit inasmuch as the plaintiff was not the tenant in his individual capacity in the premises, and, the tenant was M/s. Hollywood Grills, a unit of Wendy Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. The trial Court has therefore held that the amount of security deposit can only be claimed back by the tenant which is a company and not by the plaintiff who was the Director in the said company.