Judgment : 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 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.13,5825. 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 7. 1978 onwards. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant in his written statement states as follows: The plaintiff and the defendant are governed by the terms in the lease deed. The cycle shed has been constructed by the plaintiff at his own costs. As per the agreement, he has to leave it as it is at the time of surrendering possession. The amount claimed is also exhorbitant. The claim for the amount spent with interest is not maintainable. The defendant had to pay the electricity consumption charges, telephone wills and Central Excise charges etc. The defendant has paid them from the security deposit and the defendant is entitled to adjust the same. The deposit amount was also attached by third party creditor in O.S. No.751 of 1978. Unless the amount is paid by the defendant to the authorities mentioned, the defendant cannot settle the claim. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed. 4. On the above pleadings, after trial the trial court has held that the defendant is liable to repay the amount incurred as expenses by the plaintiff for putting up a cycle stand. The trial court has also held that since the defendant has paid the electricity charges, telephone bills Central Excise dues and the amount attached by third party, no amount is available for refund from out of the security deposit, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to refund of the same. The trial court has also held that since the defendant has paid the electricity charges, telephone bills Central Excise dues and the amount attached by third party, no amount is available for refund from out of the security deposit, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to refund of the same. Ultimately, the suit has been decreed for a sum of Rs.13,585.25 with subsequent interest and proportionate costs. 5. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has come forward with this appeal challenging the decree for Rs.13,589.25 with subsequent interests granted in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Aggrieved over the judgment of the trial court in rejecting the claim for refund of the security deposit with interest, the plaintiff has come forward with the memorandum of cross objections. 7. 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. 8. 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. 8. As regards the claim for repayment of the cost incurred by the plaintiff for constructing cycle shed, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant would argue that the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement under which, the plaintiff has been put in possession of the property and as per clause 5 of the agreement under Ex.A-3, the lessee shall held and enjoy their demised premises in its present condition and no alterations, additional charges etc., be done or carried out by the lessee without the prior sanction in writing of the lessor and the lessor confers no right or ownership on the lessee nor can the lessee can claim any set off against, or diminution of rent payable by him on the ground that he has made additions or alternations at his own expenses and therefore, even though the plaintiff has put up the cycle shed, at his cost, the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree for refund of the amount incurred by him. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the lessee may, if he so desires to form a garden plantation or other decorative additions to the demised premises without in any way affecting the safety of the structure and after obtaining previous permission of the lesser to do so, any such additions to the demised premises shall pass to the lesser as part and parcel of the demised premises on the termination of the lease free of costs as per clause 17 and therefore the appellant who is a lessee has to leave the additions to the demised premises viz-, cycle stand to the lesser free of cost on the termination of the lease. The appellant cannot press clause 17 of the agreement in its favour and argue that the appellant is entitled to have the additions put up by the lessee free of cost. The appellant cannot press clause 17 of the agreement in its favour and argue that the appellant is entitled to have the additions put up by the lessee free of cost. Since this clause is with regard to garden plantations or other decorative additions to the demised premises, cycle stand put up by the plaintiff in the demised premises cannot be considered as a garden plantation or a decorative addition to the demised premises. Therefore, the appellant cannot invoke the provisions of clause 17 and contend that on the termination of the lease, the lessor is entitled to the additions free of cost. The cycle shed is an essential amenity provided to the public who visits the cinema theatre to park their cycles in a safe place. As per Sec. 16 of the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Manual, the licensee shall provide a cycle stand for the cycles that may reasonably be expected to be brought and arrange for taking care of them. The licencee shall also make necessary arrangements to look after the cars, scooters and motor-cycles which are brought to the demised premises. The respondent herein is a licensee to run the cinema theatre for the first time after the construction of the theatre is completed by the defendant is not in dispute. There is a statutory obligation on the part of the licensee to provide a suitable cycle shed for the cycles that may be expected to be brought to the theatre and he has to arrange for taking care of them. It is not a gratuitous obligation. The words “the licensee shall provide” makes it abundantly clear that in order to get a licence to run a cinema theatre, the licensee has to comply with the provisions in the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Manual and as per Sec. 16, which is obligatory on the licensee, he has to provide a suitable cycle stand. Therefore, unless the cycle stand is provided, the licensee will not get a licence to run a theatre. The very purpose of entering into an agreement with the defendant is to run a cinema theatre and it will be defeated if the lessee, viz-, the plaintiff does not comply with the statutory provisions contemplated under Sec. 16 of the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Manual. There is no dispute that there was no cycle stand in the theatre when the parties have entered into the agreement. There is no dispute that there was no cycle stand in the theatre when the parties have entered into the agreement. The plaintiff has stated in his evidence that the Engineer of the defendant, Mr.Somasundaram has given the drawing for the construction of the cycle shed and he had put up the construction under the supervision of Mr.Somasundaram. The defendant does not dispute that the plan was provided by their Engineer and construction was done under the supervision of the defendant. On the other hand, D.W.I has admitted that Somasundaram was the site engineer, that the plaintiff has put up the cycle shed and it was under the supervision of Somasundaram. Therefore, from oral evidence of P.W.I and D.W.I it is clear that the cycle stand was put up by the lessee in the demised premises in order to satisfy the statutory requirement under the Cinematograph Manual and it was also approved and acquiesced by the lessor viz., the defendant. 9. As per Sec.70 of the Contract Act, where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore the thing as done or delivered. The plaintiff herein has lawfully done the construction of the cycle shed for the defendant and has delivered the cycle shed to the defendant. It cannot be a gratuitous act on the part of the lessor to put up a construction. In fact, the plaintiff has done the construction which the defendant should have constructed before leasing the property to the plaintiff since under the Cinematograph Manual, there must be a Cycle shed for the use of the cyclists who come to the theatre. Therefore, cycle shed has to be considered as an necessary for the cinema theatre and it cannot be considered as an ornamental structure of the cinema theatre. Therefore, the plaintiff who has satisfied the pre-requisite contemplated under the Cinematograph Manual, to run the cinema theatre for which the lease has been entered into, between the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to the cost of the construction being paid by the lessor when the lessor takes over possession of the same. Therefore, the plaintiff who has satisfied the pre-requisite contemplated under the Cinematograph Manual, to run the cinema theatre for which the lease has been entered into, between the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to the cost of the construction being paid by the lessor when the lessor takes over possession of the same. The fact that the engineer had provided the plan and supervised the construction on the defendant has approved and acquiesced the conduct of the plaintiff in putting up the construction. Therefore, even though clause 5 of the agreement under Ex.A-3 provides that no alterations, additions, etc., are to be carried out by the lessee without the prior sanction in writing of the lesser, the lessor cannot take advantage of the words without the prior sanction in writing of the lesser, the lesser under the defendant cannot take advantage of the words “without the prior sanction in writing of the lessor” in order to deny the plaintiff’s right for recovery of the amount since what the plaintiff has done is an act in compliance of the statutory requirement. The condition that the plaintiff should have obtained a prior sanction in writing of the lessor, is in my opinion, opposed to public policy since it contemplates something not in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Cinematograph Manual. Therefore, I am of opinion that the finding of the learned trial Judge that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the amount spent by him in putting up the construction is well-founded. 10. As regards the quantum, P.W. 1 has stated that he has handed over the accounts to the defendant. The evidence of P.W.I is also supported by the evidence of the son the contractor who has put up the construction and he has stated that his father has given the bill for the amount claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant as the amount incurred towards the construction of the cycle shed. There is no contra evidence that the amount claimed is excessive. Therefore, granting a decree for Rs.13,589.25 by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff is well-founded and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. In the result, the appeal as well as the memorandum of cross objections are dismissed. No costs.