Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leena Naik seeks return of ₹8,000 retained from her rental deposit by Nikhil Bendre. The parties’ rental agreement records a ₹30,000 deposit and permits deductions for damage caused by the tenant. The signed deposit acknowledgment records that ₹22,000 was returned and ₹8,000 remained disputed. Leena asks for the disputed balance. Nikhil says he used it to repair cupboard damage. 2. The hearing record includes the agreement and acknowledgment, an itemized invoice marked paid for ₹8,000, submissions by both parties, and client accounts relayed through counsel. The client accounts are not independent documents or admitted witness testimony. The invoice is presented evidence and is relevant to the repair expense, but it does not state when or why the damage occurred. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Leena has established a right to recover the retained deposit under the agreement. The second is whether the evidence establishes that Leena caused chargeable cupboard damage and whether the amount withheld is supported. These issues are related: the agreement allows a deduction for tenant-caused damage, while Leena seeks repayment of the amount retained. 4. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must point to facts or records supporting that request. The supplied rules also direct the court to weigh reliable records, distinguish ordinary wear from damage, require detail for deposit deductions, and require proof of damage value. The agreement’s wording is controlling evidence of the condition for a deduction. No supplied rule shifts Leena’s burden on her request for repayment to Nikhil. Submissions of the parties 5. Leena argues that the agreement permits a deduction only for damage she caused. She accepts that the invoice records a paid repair but says it does not connect the work to her conduct or establish when the damage began. She says she sent a message during the first week about a faulty hinge, but acknowledges that she cannot produce it and does not ask the court to treat the message as proven. She also relies on Nikhil’s account that he cannot say when the damage began and that there was no signed move-in checklist. Leena asks for the remaining ₹8,000. 6. Nikhil argues that the cupboard was slightly damaged before the tenancy ended and that continued use caused further damage. He disputes that the damage was ordinary wear and denies breaking the door during transport. He relies on the paid invoice and says the repair was necessary. He also argues that Leena’s inability to produce her message makes her account false and that she has not proved the damage was not caused by her. Those arguments are considered, but the agreement and supplied burden rule do not require Leena to disprove every possible cause as a substitute for deciding whether her repayment claim is established. Evidence and findings 7. The agreement and deposit acknowledgment establish the deposit amount, the return of ₹22,000, the retention of ₹8,000, and the tenant-caused-damage condition. They do not record the cupboard’s condition at move-in or identify who caused the later damage. The parties do not dispute that the tenancy occurred or that the money was retained. 8. The invoice records payment of ₹8,000 for replacing two hinges and repairing the cupboard door’s mounting edge after handover. It is itemized and marked paid. I accept it as evidence that Nikhil incurred that repair expense. It does not assess the cupboard’s earlier condition, identify when the damage arose, or attribute it to Leena. The invoice therefore proves cost, not responsibility. 9. Leena’s account of a first-week message is an attributed account, not a produced message. Her own final submission recognizes that limitation. I do not find that the message was produced or that it independently proves a pre-existing defect. Equally, the absence of the message does not itself prove that her account is false. Nikhil’s relayed account says he cannot identify when the damage began and that there was no signed move-in checklist or identifiable witness who can confirm its timing. His assertion that continued use caused the damage is relevant, but it is not supported by a condition record or direct evidence identifying when or how the damage worsened. Reasons 10. Under Rule 11, a deposit deduction is stronger when itemized, tied to actual costs, and connected to tenant-caused damage. The amount and repair expense are itemized here. The missing link is responsibility. The agreement does not authorize a deduction merely because a repair was made; it specifies tenant-caused damage. The invoice cannot establish that condition by itself. 11. Rule 9 distinguishes ordinary wear from misconduct, and Rule 30 requires proof of condition, cause, and value for a property-damage claim. The invoice gives meaningful proof of value for the work performed. But the record does not establish the cupboard’s condition at the start of the tenancy, the timing of the damage, or that Leena caused it. Leena’s unproduced message does not fill that gap. Nikhil’s account of worsening damage does not fill it either. The court cannot treat either party’s unsupported account as conclusive. 12. The uncertainty is material, but it does not automatically entitle Leena to repayment. She is the party asking the court to order return of the retained deposit and bears the burden under Rule 1. The evidence establishes that the deduction was made and that a repair of the same amount was paid for; it does not establish whether the contractual condition for retaining the money was met. On this record, Leena has not proven her entitlement to the disputed amount. This is not a finding that Leena caused the damage, nor a finding that Nikhil’s account of its cause is established. It is a decision that the evidence does not satisfy the burden on Leena’s claim. 13. Nikhil’s arguments about Leena’s credibility do not change that result. The absence of her message limits the weight of her account, but does not prove that she lied. Likewise, Nikhil’s personal character assertions and unsupported accusations do not establish causation. The result follows from the burden on the repayment claim and the limits of the available evidence, not from a finding that one party’s account is fully verified. Final order 14. Leena’s claim for return of the disputed ₹8,000 is denied. No payment is ordered from Nikhil to Leena, and no additional payment is ordered from Leena to Nikhil. The ₹8,000 already retained remains undisturbed by this judgment. The court makes no finding that Leena caused the cupboard damage; it finds only that her request for repayment is not proven on this record. No other relief is granted.