Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.1995 made in O.S.No.11624 of 1988 on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The appellants herein are the defendants before the trial Court in O.S.No.11624 of 1988. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and also for a direction to the appellants/defendants to pay a sum of Rs.92,000/-together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Court below has decreed the suit directing the appellants/defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal. .3. Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellants/defendants submitted that the Trial Court, without considering the evidence and the merits of the case properly, has decreed the suit directing the appellants/defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-to the respondent/plaintiff, though the respondent/plaintiff had filed only a copy of the legal notice dated 010. 1994 sent by him, without any other supporting documents for claiming Rs.92,000/-. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the oral evidence of the respondent/plaintiff and the copy of the notice marked as Ex.A-1 would not be sufficient to establish the case of the respondent/plaintiff to base the money claim, however the Court below has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.50,000/- without any supporting evidence. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the appellants/defendants have marked 24 documents including the agreement dated 30.12.1986 entered into between the appellants/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff and the Assistant Divisional Engineer was examined as D.W.1. According to him, though the respondent/plaintiff has not produced sufficient supporting documents to establish his claim, in the written statement filed by the appellants/defendants, it has been admitted at para No.2 that the respondent/plaintiff had paid Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.19,000/- and Additional Security Deposit of Rs.25,000/-, totally a sum of Rs.44,000/-. 5. It has been admitted by both the appellants well as the respondent herein that the first respondent had called for tenders for the purpose of improving Kanchipuram bye-pass road, from K.M.0/0:6/4, including construction of vented cause-way, at KM 5/2-4 in lieu of the existing road dam". 6. 5. It has been admitted by both the appellants well as the respondent herein that the first respondent had called for tenders for the purpose of improving Kanchipuram bye-pass road, from K.M.0/0:6/4, including construction of vented cause-way, at KM 5/2-4 in lieu of the existing road dam". 6. According to the respondent/plaintiff, after the acceptance of his tender, he had collected the materials required for the aforesaid construction work and also started the work. However, as the appellants/defendants had not removed certain obstructions, the respondent/plaintiff could not perform his part of the contract entered into on 30.12.1986 and due to the apprehension that the appellants/defendants would take penal action against the respondent/plaintiff, the suit was instituted for a declaration that the contract entered into between the appellants/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff herein on 30.12.1986 was unenforceable and for a consequential permanent injunction, not to take any penal action against the respondent/plaintiff based on the agreement. The respondent/plaintiff had further pleaded in the suit for return of a sum of Rs.92,000/-together with 6% interest per annum. However, the respondent/plaintiff had not produced any supporting documents to substantiate his claim of Rs.92,000/-. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/defendants further contended that there was no breach of contract by the appellants, but the respondent/plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract, as per the tender, hence, subsequently the tender was cancelled and the work was allotted to some other person. On the admission made by the appellants/defendants in the written statement, it is clear that the respondent had deposited Rs.44,000/-with the appellants towards Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.) of Rs.19,000/- and Additional Security of Rs.25,000/-and the said amount has not been returned to the respondent. There is no specific evidence to show that the appellants had incurred any loss due to breach of contract by the respondent herein and therefore, retaining the Earnest Money Deposit and Additional Security amount would be an unjust enrichment. 8. In these circumstances to meet the ends of justice, this Court is of the view to direct the appellants/defendants, to return the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.19,000/-along with the Additional Security Deposit of Rs.25,000/-to the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff has not established that he was performing his part of the contract and that there was a breach of contract only on the part of the appellants/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff has not established that he was performing his part of the contract and that there was a breach of contract only on the part of the appellants/defendants. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to any interest for the aforesaid amount. 9. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Trial Court has held without any supporting documents, or admission by the appellants/defendants that Rs.22,000/- had been spent for material collection and Rs.20,000/- was spent towards non-completion of the work by the respondent/plaintiff and awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the appellants/defendants. The finding of the Court below is not based an any evidence, and therefore as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the judgment and decree of the Court below has to be set aside, since the same is not supported by any evidence. .10. As discussed earlier in the judgment, it has been admitted by the appellants/defendants that an amount of Rs.19,000/-towards Earnest Money Deposit and Rs.25,000/- towards Additional Security Deposit, were received by the appellants from the respondent herein. There is no evidence on the side of the appellants/defendants to show that there was any loss incurred by them due to the default committed by the respondent. Hence, retaining the money by the appellants would be construed only as an unjust enrichment, as stated earlier. 11. In such circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, this Court finds it just and reasonable to direct the appellants/defendants, to return the Earnest Money Deposit and Additional Security Deposit that had been received from the respondent/plaintiff, since the tender was subsequently allotted to some other person. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances and the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, it is ordered that the appellants/defendants herein have to pay a sum of Rs.44,000/- received from the respondent/plaintiff, by way of Earnest Money Deposit and Additional Security Deposit. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the appellants herein are directed to return the money paid by the respondent towards Earnest Money Deposit and Additional Security Deposit. 13. It has been verified by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff that on 23.04.1996, a sum of Rs.32,569/-was deposited by the appellants/defendants before the Trial Court and the same was withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff on 14.02.2002. 13. It has been verified by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff that on 23.04.1996, a sum of Rs.32,569/-was deposited by the appellants/defendants before the Trial Court and the same was withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff on 14.02.2002. Hence, the appellants/defendants are directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.11,431/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the respondent would be entitled to get the amount with 9% interest for the balance amount from the date of this judgment. However, there is no order as to costs.