Judgment :- This appeal is filed by the second defendant, namely, Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited, Nagercoil represented by its present Managing Director, M. Jayaraj having his office at Nesamani Nagar, Rani Thottam, Nagercoil, against the judgement and decree dt. 25-4-1979 in O.S. No. 62/77 on the file of the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. 2. The suit was laid by Kamachi Ammal for specific performance of an agreement of lease and for recovery of arrears of rent. 3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows : The suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. At the request of the second defendant, the plaintiff consented to let the suit building to the second defendant on a monthly rental of Rs. 750/- for a period of 5 years from 1-10-1974, and accordingly a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was agreed to be paid, which would be adjusted towards rent of the last six months of the lease period and second defendant also agreed to handover possession on the expiry of the lease period. In pursuance of the lease agreement the second defendant was put in possession of the suit property on 1-10-74. A rental agreement with some terms and conditions, was sent by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant for signature but it has not been returned by the 2nd defendant so far. The second defendant was not regular in payment of rent. In the meanwhile, the 2nd defendant approached the plaintiff for constructing a maintenance shed measuring 40 x 75 feet in the suit site and the plaintiff also agreed for the same with new terms and conditions of lease relating to enhancement of rent and security deposit, etc. The 2nd defendant agreed by its letter dt. 22-9-1975 for the new terms and conditions of lease. Though the plaintiff requested the second defendant to execute a fresh lease deed, it did not execute the same. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a telegram on 6-7-1976 to the second defendant to execute the lease deed. Again on 20-5-76 the plaintiff issued another telegram requesting the second defendant to pay arrears of rent and additional security deposit, for which the 6th defendant sent a reply stating that the second defendant had supplied 85 bags of cement worth Rs. 1,683/- for the construction of the workshop building at the suit site and that the same will have to be adjusted towards arrears of rent. 1,683/- for the construction of the workshop building at the suit site and that the same will have to be adjusted towards arrears of rent. The plaintiff never agreed to pay the value of the cement or adjust the value of the same towards rent. Since the second defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and additional security deposit, in spite of repeated reminders. plaintiff issued a notice on 15-9-76 to the second defendant asking it to pay the arrears of rent, additional security deposit and to execute a registered lease deed, for which the second defendant sent a reply on 31-10-76 setting up false and incorrect contentions. The plaintiff is not bound to accept the rent which is not in accordance with the terms agreed, and therefore, there is no unjustness in the refusal of the cheque. Thereafter the plaintiff issued a notice under S.80. C.P.C., requiring the defendants to execute a registered lease deed for a period of ten years and to pay arrears of rent as well as additional security deposit, Subsequent to the notice served on the defendants, the second defendant had paid Rs. 1,000/-. Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,500/- being the rent for the months of December, 1976, January, 1977 and February 1977. Hence the suit for specific performance of an agreement of lease and for recovery of arrears of rent. 4. The first defendant has filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable in law and on facts; that the first defendant has nothing to do with the transactions stated in the plaint; that the first defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit; that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant and that the first defendant is entitled to compensatory costs. 5. 5. The defendants 2 and 4 have filed a written statement, which has been adopted by the 6th defendant, contending that the suit is not maintainable; that the duplicate of the lease agreement was sent to the plaintiff as soon as the original was executed; that the second defendant never agreed to supply 85 bags of cement free of cost for the construction of shed; that the additional shed was put up by mutual consent; that there is no need for a second formal agreement to be entered by the plaintiff and the second defendant as the rent payable for the additional shed and other modifications of the previous lease agreement has been settled by correspondence between the parties; that the plaintiff's refusal to receive the cheque is not justified; that the plaintiff cannot ask for additional security; that the original agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant is not valid in law; that there cannot be a subsequent modification of an invalid lease deed which is non est in law; that the plaintiff cannot enforce specific performance of an agreement to execute the second lease agreement and that the plaintiff's suit for specific performance to execute a lease deed for a period of 10 years is not maintainable. 5A. Defendants 3 and 5 have filed a written statement contending that they did not promise the plaintiff to supply the cement free of cost; that the plaint allegation that the agreement in respect of cement flooring was entered into at a subsequent stage is not correct and that these defendants are not liable to pay Rs. 1,683/- being the costs of the cement to the plaintiff. 6. The following issues have been settled for the trial of the suit : 1. Whether the second defendant is liable to execute a registered lease deed for a period of 10 years from 1-4-76 to 31-5-86 in accordance with the draft filed by the plaintiff and also pay a sum of Rs. 4,500/- as additional advance ? 2. Whether the second defendant is not bound to execute a registered lease deed for the reasons alleged in paras 6 and 11 of the written statement of defendants 2 and 4 ? 3. Whether the deduction by the 2nd defendant of Rs. 1,683/- towards cost of cement and the adjustment of the advance amount of Rs. 2. Whether the second defendant is not bound to execute a registered lease deed for the reasons alleged in paras 6 and 11 of the written statement of defendants 2 and 4 ? 3. Whether the deduction by the 2nd defendant of Rs. 1,683/- towards cost of cement and the adjustment of the advance amount of Rs. 4,500/- from the rent payable for the period from 1-4-1975 to 30-9-1975 is legal, valid or just ? 4. Whether the 2nd defendant is estopped from adjusting the advance amount towards rent for the period from 1-4-1975 to 30-9-1975 ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the arrears of rent as claimed by her ? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the arrears of rent ? 7. Whether defendants 3 and 5 are liable to pay the value of the cement to the plaintiff in case it is held that the 2nd defendant is entitled to the value of the cement ? 8. Whether the Ist defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit ? 9. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ? 7. On behalf of the plaintiff P.W. 1 Chidambara Nadar was examined and on behalf of the defendants T. Samraj was examined as D.W. 1, Exs. A-1 to A-14 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and Exs. B-1 to B-22 were marked on the side of the defendants. The trial court on issues 1 and 2 held that the 2nd defendant is bound to execute a registered lease deed for a period of 10 years from 1-4-1976 in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties and also to pay a sum of Rs. B-1 to B-22 were marked on the side of the defendants. The trial court on issues 1 and 2 held that the 2nd defendant is bound to execute a registered lease deed for a period of 10 years from 1-4-1976 in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties and also to pay a sum of Rs. 4,500/- as additional advance; that on issues 3 and 4 the trial court held that the deduction of the cost of cement and adjustment of the advance amount by the second defendant in the rent payable for the period from 1-4-1975 to 30-9-1975 is not legal or valid and that the 2nd defendant is estopped from adjusting the advance amount in the rent for the period from 1-4-1975 to 30-9-1975; that on issue No. 5 the trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent as claimed; that on issue No. 7 the trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on arrears of rent; that on issue No. 8 the trial court held that the first defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit and that on issue No. 9 the trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for with regard to reliefs A and B. 8. It is contended by Mr. A.R. Ramanathan, learned counsel for the appellant that there was no necessity to execute any agreement as alleged by the plaintiff and consequently there was no agreement entered into for the lease as contended by the plaintiff. This court is of the opinion that since the lease period had expired by 31-3-1986, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant need not be gone into. 9. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the sum of Rs. 1,810/- decreed by way of interest from the date of suit i.e., 21-3-1977 to 30-7-1979 the date of decree cannot be sustained in law since there had been an unreasonable refusal of the plaintiff of the cheque issued by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Inasmuch as there had been an unreasonable refusal on the part of the plaintiff of the cheque issued by the second defendant, according to the learned counsel for the second defendant, he should not be mulcted with the interest on the arrears of rent, namely, Rs. 1,810/-. Inasmuch as there had been an unreasonable refusal on the part of the plaintiff of the cheque issued by the second defendant, according to the learned counsel for the second defendant, he should not be mulcted with the interest on the arrears of rent, namely, Rs. 1,810/-. No doubt the law contemplates that imposition of interest is purely a discretion of the court. This discretion has necessarily to be exercised judicially without capricious or arbitrary approach. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, while exercising the discretion the trial court has erred in not taking into account the valid tender of a cheque by the second defendant/appellant and the unreasonable refusal of the same on the part of the plaintiff. On a perusal of the judgement of the court below, it is clear that the trial court has not considered this aspect, while exercising discretion in awarding interest, especially when there is an unreasonable refusal on the part of the plaintiff of the cheque validly tendered by the second defendant. Therefore, I am of the view that the Ist respondent herein is not entitled to any interest and consequently, the interest amount of Rs. 1,810/- awarded by the trial court has necessarily to he deleted from the decree. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the interest amount of Rs. 1,810/- has to be deleted from the decree of the trial court. Under the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed in part.