TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT WELFARE COMMITTEE Vs. M SIVAKKANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the appellant.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is as follows: THE plaintiff was lessee of the cinema theatre'kalaiarangam'Trichy for one year from 1. 7. 1977 to 30. 6. 1978. THE theatre lacked a cycle shed. It is a sine qua non under the cinematograph licence to run a cinema theatre. THE plaintiff was authorised to construct a cycle stand at his own cost for Rs. 13,589. 25. THE lease period is over. THE plaintiff has been dispossessed by the Revenue and police Officials on 30. 6. 1978. THE amount spent by the plaintiff for putting up a cycle shed has not been repaid by the defendant. A sum of Rs. 71,400 is lying in security deposit with the defendant. THE said amount also has not been repaid. THE plaintiff issued a notice calling upon the defendant to pay the said sum. But, there was no reply. THE plaintiff is therefore entitled to the said two sums with interest at 12% per annum from 1. 7. 1978 onwards. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the cross objector, even at the outset has conceded that the security deposit being only Rs. 71,400 and the defendant having paid more than this amount, the defendant is not bound to repay the security deposit to the plaintiff. It is also conceded by the learned counsel that the claim for interest on the security deposit made by the plaintiff is not sustainable and even if the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him as security deposit, he is not entitled to interest as claimed in the plaint. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the cross objector, the memorandum of cross objections is really without merits and it has to be rejected and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.