Civil court in Pune denies tenant’s claim for return of ₹8,000 withheld for wall repairs

The Civil court in Pune denied Leena Kulkarni’s claim against Farhan Shaikh for return of ₹8,000 withheld from her rental security deposit. It ordered no payment to either party, finding that Leena had not proved the amount she sought to recover.

The court found that Leena caused bedroom hook marks and that the tenancy agreement permitted a reasonable deduction for their repair. However, the evidence neither established the reasonable repair cost nor justified retaining the full ₹8,000.

The denial therefore did not amount to approval of Farhan’s deduction. The court distinguished Leena’s failure to prove her recovery claim from Farhan’s failure to establish that the sum withheld was fair.

The signed agreement allowed deductions for tenant-caused damage beyond ordinary use but contained no automatic repainting fee. Relying on Leena’s acknowledgment and the handover exchange, the court found that she caused the bedroom marks and did not treat them as ordinary wear.

The WhatsApp exchange supported the limited location and nature of the damage. Farhan had described the other rooms as looking fine and identified the bedroom marks as needing touch-up. The messages did not state a repair price or establish that work had been completed.

The painter’s ₹12,000 estimate covered repainting the entire two-bedroom flat. The court found that it showed a proposed price, not completed or paid work, and neither explained why the other rooms required painting nor separately priced the bedroom repair.

Farhan’s contention that touch-up work might look mismatched was an argument rather than a separate painter’s report or itemized price. His subsequent concession that whole-flat repainting was unjustified further limited the estimate’s evidentiary value.

Applying the supplied rules on proof, deposit deductions and proportionate remedies, the court held that a deduction must be connected to the repair need. It could not choose a repair figure without supporting evidence, but also could not assume that an unpriced repair had no reasonable cost.

Leena bore the burden of supporting her requested relief. Although she demonstrated why the whole-flat estimate was inadequate, she neither established that the reasonable repair cost was zero nor supplied a supported amount for an award.

This conclusion does not affirm that Farhan proved ₹8,000 to be a fair deduction.

Leena accepted responsibility for the hook marks and acknowledged that a reasonable repair charge could be deducted. She nevertheless sought the entire ₹8,000 because there was no itemized bedroom-repair estimate, paid bill or other evidence establishing a fair charge.

Farhan initially relied on the painter’s estimate and argued that a touch-up would leave an uneven appearance. He later accepted that repainting the entire flat was not justified, while maintaining that the established damage entitled him to retain some amount.

Farhan ultimately asked the court to determine a reasonable charge and accepted repayment of the balance. Neither party supplied further cost evidence, and Leena maintained her request for full recovery.

Leena rented the flat from Farhan and paid a ₹30,000 security deposit. Both parties accepted that ₹22,000 had been returned, leaving ₹8,000 withheld for bedroom-wall repainting and touch-up.

The dispute centred on the amount deductible, rather than whether the hook marks existed. The principal documents were the tenancy agreement and deposit acknowledgment, the whole-flat repainting estimate, and the key-handover WhatsApp exchange.

The outcome leaves Leena without a recovery order on the present record, but does not establish ₹8,000 as a reasonable repair charge. Its scope is limited to the unproved amount claimed and the evidence available in this dispute.