A security deposit must be refunded unless compelling evidence justifies retention; inadequate documentation does not invalidate a valid claim.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent Panchayat for running a business in room No. MP II/259 C, in the shopping complex owned by the respondent Panchayat as earlier as in the year 1997. According to the petitioner, while entering into the agreement as above, he had deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards security deposit. The license had also been renewed periodically. Ultimately, the petitioner states that he continued to occupy the room referred to above till 2018, and on the directions of the respondent Panchayat he vacated the premises pursuant to Ext.P1 notice dated 30.11.2018. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to refund of the amount collected from him. However, the petitioner complains that the respondent Panchayat is not refunding the afore amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by him as security deposit, and that is why he is before this Court seeking appropriate reliefs.

2. I have heard Sri. Muhammed Junaid V., the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no appearance from the side of the respondent Panchayat on 23.02.2026 as well as today.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Panchayat. As per the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled to the afore refund since he has not produced the receipt as regards the payment of the afore sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The counter affidavit also states that Ext.R1(A) resolution has been adopted by the Panchayat not to refund the afore amount to the petitioner herein.

4. True, the petitioner has not produced the receipt with respect to the afore amount of Rs.1,00,000/- stated to have been paid towards security deposit. At the same time, the petitioner has produced and relied on Ext.P2, a statement of the respondent Panchayat wherein the payment made by the petitioner on 26.02.1997 and 28.05.1997 has been referred to, with the receipt numbers. Similarly, this Court also notices Ext.R2(a), which was produced by the respondent Panchayat in an earlier writ petition filed by another person (W.P.(C). No.24302 of 2022), produced in this writ petition by the petitioner as Ext.P6, wherein also an amount of Rs.86,550/- is specifically shown against the petitioner as paid towards security deposit.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Muhammed Junaid V., explains that the petitioner had remitted Rs.1,00,000/- in two instalments, and that is why Rs.86,550/- alone is shown in the afore document. This Court notices with reference to Ext.P2 that even according to the Panchayat, payments were made on two dates - 26.02.1997 and 28.05.1997 as noticed earlier. Therefore, the contentions raised by Sri. Muhammed Junaid requires to be accepted.

6. On the basis of the afore, this Court is of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondent Panchayat that they have taken a decision not to refund the afore amount cannot be accepted. This Court also notices that in the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat, a reference is made to the alleged falsification of documents carried out by one Muhammed Kasim, a UD Clerk who was working with the respondent Panchayat, who is stated to be known to the petitioner herein. This Court also notices the stand taken by the petitioner in reply affidavit filed with specific reference to Ext.P9 judgment of the Criminal Court in CC No.60/2016 dated 21.02.2019, wherein the charge against the afore Muhamed Kasim was with reference to a conspiracy with one M.K. Hamza alone and not with reference to the petitioner herein.

7. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

Therefore, this writ petition will stand allowed, directing the respondents herein to refund th