JUDGMENT

1. The parties in this appeal entered into a contract for the allotment of a unipole for the display of advertisements against the payment of a licence fee. The said unipole could not be used for the assigned purpose and the Respondent sought a refund of its licence fee, along with interest for the time period during which the fee was being duly paid and advertisements could not be displayed. The Appellant SDMC declined to refund the same.

That is the sum and substance of the small issue that arises for our consideration in this appeal.

2. Let us briefly explain the factual matrix of the case. On 06.11.2017, the Appellant SDMC, vide a tender notice bearing no. CO/Tender- 12/Advtt./SDMC/2017/NIT/D-1342 (Tender Notice/Contract Document), invited bids for operating a unipole falling under its jurisdiction and for allotment of advertisement rights through the same. On 04.01.2018, the Appellant issued an allotment letter to the Respondent granting advertisement rights to it for Cluster no. 10 for an initial period of three years. Thereafter, on 18.04.2019, the Public Works Department (PWD) issued a letter to the Respondent stating that the hoarding of "CREDAI Youth Icon-19" displa