Judgment : S. TAMILVANAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1994, made in O.S. No. 1014 of 1988 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. 2. The appellants herein where the defendants 1 and 2 before the Trial Court. The respondent, as plaintiff, had filed the suit for return of the earnest money deposit and caution deposit paid by him to the appellants. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a licensee for Arrack shop No. 2 of Mettupalayam Taluk for the Excise Year from 16.7.1984 to 15.7.1985. The License was extended for a further period of three months from 16.7.1985 to 15.10.1985, pending decision regarding taking over of the business by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited. As per the terms of the contract, being the successful bidder, the respondent herein was asked to pay the monthly kist of Rs. 72,000/-. The bid of the respondent was accepted and confirmed by the appropriate authorities and he was also granted license to run the shop. For the aforesaid arrack shop the respondent/plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,500/-as earnest money deposit, apart from security deposit of Rs. 29,000/- and the license period admittedly came to an end on 15.10.1995 and therefore, the respondent is entitled to get back the money he had deposited. Inspite of the attempts made by the respondent/plaintiff, the aforesaid amount was not refunded and that is why he had issued legal notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C., demanding refund of the amount and subsequently filed the suit, since the amount was not refunded to him. 4. In the written statement filed by the second appellant and adopted by the first appellant it was stated that the respondent had to pay a sum of Rs. 17,580.55 being rental arrears for the aforesaid shops at Mettupalayam. 5. Ms. A Sathya Bama, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there was no arrears of rent or other dues payable by the respondent/plaintiff, as stated in the written statement and the appellants herein have not denied the aforesaid deposits made by the respondent herein. Further in support of the contention of the respondent, he had produced supporting documents for the aforesaid deposits made by him. Further in support of the contention of the respondent, he had produced supporting documents for the aforesaid deposits made by him. Under such circumstances, without furnishing any details and even without issuing any notice stating about any arrears of rent or dues payable by the respondent, in the written statement, the appellants have raised only a bald allegation that there was amount due and payable by the respondent. The appellants have stated that an amount of Rs. 17,580.50 was due and payable for which there is no supporting documents. 6. Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader, has not disputed that as per Section 10 of the Prohibition Act, after the expiry of the license period the earnest money deposit as well as the caution deposit, should be refunded to the licence. In the written statement, the appellant herein, as defendants, have raised the plea that as per Section 56-A and B of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, Civil Court has no jurisdictions to entertain the suit, but the said defence was negatived by the Court below. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no statutory bar to maintain the civil suit, since the respondent has claimed only for refund of the deposits already made, after the expiry of the period of licence. In support of her contention the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision in H. M. Sulaiman v. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chepauk, Madras 5 and Others H. M. Sulaiman v. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chepauk, Madras 5 and Others H. M. Sulaiman v. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chepauk, Madras 5 and Others - 1993 (2) LW 269 , wherein this Court has directed the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-5 to refund the money which was paid by way of earnest money deposit on three months kist for a arrack shop paid by the petitioner therein as successful bidder. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has held seeking refund of EMD which was paid by the successful bidder in public of auction arrack shop is entitled to claim the amount has a common law remitted through civil Court. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has held seeking refund of EMD which was paid by the successful bidder in public of auction arrack shop is entitled to claim the amount has a common law remitted through civil Court. In the said judgment, this Court has given the ruling as follows: “Generally, claims for damages can and have got to be agitated by the Government also only like any other citizen or authority or institution before the ordinary common law Courts and cannot be decided by the authorities themselves and particularly exercising powers under the Rules in question. R-18 of the Rules also would initiate against such claims there being not much difference in refusal of confirmation or setting aside the order of confirmation by the Commissioner on appeal or revision. Consequently, the impugned order suffers serious infirmity in so far as it denies the refund to the petitioner of the amount, which he has deposited, and to which he is entitled legitimately under the Rules.” 8. In the light of the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for in the suit is only for refund of the earnest money deposit and security deposit, after expiry of the period of license. It is not in dispute that as per Section 10 of the Prohibition Act, the appellants were entitled to adjust the said amount, if there is any arrears of rent or dues payable to the Government. 9. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that there was any arrears of rent or other dues payable to the appellants and therefore, keeping the money already deposited as earnest money deposit and caution deposit would amount to unjust enrichment, for which the appellant is not entitled to, as found by the Court below. It is clear that there is no specific plea by the appellants/defendants that there was any arrears of rent payable to the Government. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence to show that the respondent was liable to pay any arrears or other dues to the appellants. In order to establish such dues payable by the respondent, even the account books or the certified copies of the same maintained in the regular course of business were not produced. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence to show that the respondent was liable to pay any arrears or other dues to the appellants. In order to establish such dues payable by the respondent, even the account books or the certified copies of the same maintained in the regular course of business were not produced. Similarly, there is ho proof of service of any notice by the appellant towards such dues. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to get refund of the deposit made by him and I find no error or infirmity in the judgment and decree rendered by the Court below. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, this appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.