Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The present dispute concerns a residential security deposit retained after the end of a tenancy in Bengaluru. The plaintiff, Nikhil Batra, says that he paid a deposit of ₹90,000, vacated the flat after eleven months, cleaned the premises, returned the keys, and received only ₹42,000 back. He seeks return of the retained ₹48,000 and reasonable filing costs. 2. The defendant, Devika Rao, says the retention was justified by repainting and cabinet-related restoration. The record before the Court includes the parties’ competing claims, the plaintiff’s reference to a WhatsApp complaint about a kitchen cabinet hinge during the tenancy, and the defendant’s reliance on a signed agreement and move-out photographs. Issues for determination 3. The material questions are: first, whether the defendant has justified withholding ₹48,000 from the security deposit; second, whether the plaintiff has shown that the deduction was unsupported or excessive; and third, what relief, if any, should follow on the record. 4. Because this is a security-deposit dispute, the Court must apply the applicable burden rules in the record. The tenant must show that the deposit was withheld and why the deduction is challenged. The landlord must justify the deduction with itemization, actual-cost support, or specific condition evidence. Rule 11 and Rule 9 are directly engaged: ordinary wear, routine turnover cleaning, and vague minor repairs are not enough without specific support. Submissions of the parties 5. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant withheld ₹48,000 without an itemized list of deductions or invoices and that the cabinet issue had already been raised during the tenancy. The plaintiff submits that the repainting charge and cabinet charge were therefore not properly chargeable to the deposit. 6. The defendant’s case is that the agreement allowed charges for damage beyond ordinary wear and that the move-out photographs show wall marks and a cabinet condition requiring restoration. The defendant also argues that a prior cabinet complaint does not prevent a later repair charge if the condition still needed work at move-out. Evidence and findings 7. The Court accepts as established that a deposit was paid, that only ₹42,000 was returned, and that ₹48,000 was retained for repainting and a cabinet issue. Those facts are visible in the record and are not materially disputed. 8. The Court also accepts that the plaintiff raised a kitchen cabinet issue near the start of the tenancy, and that the defendant relies on photographs showing wall marks and a cabinet condition. However, the photographs do not date the condition, and the record does not show a move-in comparison set. The agreement language, as summarized in the file, permits charges for damage beyond ordinary wear, but it does not create an automatic entitlement to full repainting or to an unparticularized deduction. 9. The decisive weakness in the defendant’s case is the absence of itemization and actual-cost proof for the amount retained. The record notes no paid bill supporting the repainting charge, no itemized damage breakdown, and no move-out checklist or inspection form. Under the burden allocation in the record, those omissions matter to the landlord’s justification, not merely to the tenant’s proof. 10. The Court does not accept the plaintiff’s broader submission that any repair during tenancy can never be charged to a tenant. That proposition is too broad. A landlord may, in principle, recover properly proved damage beyond ordinary wear. But on this record, the defendant has not shown that the full ₹48,000 retained was tied to specific tenant-caused damage, actual costs, and a documented breakdown. 11. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to succeed in part. The record supports the conclusion that the retention was not adequately proved to the full extent claimed by the defendant. At the same time, the photographs and agreement language provide some basis for a limited deduction, so the Court is not persuaded that the entire deposit should be returned in the abstract. The Court must therefore calibrate relief to the proof available. Reasons 12. Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 places the burden on the party who would fail if no evidence were given. In this dispute, the plaintiff had to show the retention and challenge the deduction; that burden was met. The defendant then had to justify the retained amount with evidence sufficient to support the deduction. That burden was not fully discharged. 13. Rule 11 is material and decisive. A landlord withholding deposit money needs itemization, actual-cost support, and a connection between each deduction and tenant-caused damage. The defendant’s case does not supply that chain for ₹48,000. The agreement and photographs may support some restoration cost, but they do not prove the full amount retained. 14. Rule 9 also assists the plaintiff. Repainting and routine turnover-type charges cannot be treated as automatically chargeable without specific support. Here, the record does not show which portion of the repainting was ordinary turnover work, which portion related to proven damage, or why the sum retained was set at ₹48,000 rather than a lesser amount. 15. The plaintiff’s WhatsApp complaint about the cabinet does not by itself eliminate a later charge for actual damage at move-out. The Court accepts that point. But the complaint does weaken the defendant’s attempt to present the cabinet issue as a fresh, undisputed tenant-caused defect, and it reinforces the need for dated, itemized proof that is absent here. 16. The request for legal fees is denied. The visible record does not provide a separate legal basis or proof for such an award. The Court therefore confines relief to the deposit dispute itself. Final order 17. The prevailing side is the plaintiff. 18. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff ₹48,000 in Indian Rupees. 19. The claim for additional legal fees is denied for want of supporting basis on the record. 20. The plaintiff obtains partial relief on the deposit dispute because the defendant failed to justify the full retention with itemized, actual-cost proof and specific condition evidence. The defendant’s evidence was sufficient to resist a finding that all repair charges were necessarily improper, but not sufficient to sustain the full amount withheld.