Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leena Kulkarni rented a flat from Farhan Shaikh and paid a ₹30,000 security deposit. The parties accept that Farhan returned ₹22,000 and retained ₹8,000. Leena asks for the remaining ₹8,000. Farhan initially relied on an estimate for repainting the whole flat, but later accepted that repainting the entire flat was not justified and asked the court to set a reasonable amount. In his final statement, Farhan said Leena should be paid the balance after a reasonable repair charge. 2. The parties’ signed agreement permits deductions for tenant-caused damage beyond ordinary use. It does not impose an automatic repainting fee. Leena accepts that her bedroom hooks left marks. The dispute is therefore not whether the marks existed or whether some reasonable repair cost could be deducted. It is whether the evidence proves that Leena is entitled to recover the full amount withheld, or supports a different amount. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether the ₹8,000 deduction was justified by the bedroom damage, and what amount, if any, the evidence supports. Under the supplied burden-of-proof rule, Leena must support her request for relief with evidence. The supplied rules on deposit deductions and proportional remedies also require a deduction to be tied to the damage and a reasonable amount, rather than an unsupported broad charge. Submissions of the parties 4. Leena argues that the estimate is for repainting the whole flat, not repairing the bedroom marks. She points to Farhan’s handover message that the other rooms looked fine and only the bedroom marks needed touching up. She accepts that a reasonable repair cost may be deducted, but says the evidence does not establish any fair amount and maintains her request for the full ₹8,000. She has said she has no further cost evidence. 5. Farhan initially argued that the painter considered a touch-up likely to look mismatched and that the estimate was about ₹12,000. He later conceded that repainting the whole flat was not justified. He maintained that some amount could be withheld for the damage and asked the court to set that amount. In his final statement, he accepted that Leena should receive the rest after a reasonable charge, without identifying a specific charge or additional evidence for one. Evidence and findings 6. The agreement and deposit acknowledgment, exhibit-3-e1, establish a ₹30,000 deposit, the return of ₹22,000, and permission to deduct for tenant-caused damage beyond ordinary use. They also establish that there is no automatic repainting fee. The parties’ agreement on the hook marks, together with Leena’s acknowledgment in the handover exchange, establishes that she caused the bedroom marks. The court does not treat the marks as ordinary wear on this record. 7. The handover exchange, exhibit-3-e3, is a contemporaneous account attributed to both parties. Farhan wrote that the other rooms looked fine and the bedroom marks needed touching up; Leena acknowledged that the marks came from her hooks and asked to be told the cost. This supports the limited location and nature of the damage. It does not state a repair price or prove that any particular work was completed. 8. The estimate, exhibit-3-e2, lists repainting a two-bedroom flat for ₹12,000. It supports that this was a proposed price for the listed whole-flat work. It does not show that the work was performed or paid for, explain why repainting rooms described as fine was necessary, or separate the cost of repairing the bedroom marks. Farhan’s explanation that a touch-up might look mismatched is an argument, not a separate painter’s report or itemized price in the record. Farhan’s later concession that whole-flat repainting was not justified further limits the estimate’s value as proof of a reasonable deduction. 9. No invoice, payment record, or separate bedroom-repair estimate is in the record. Both parties have said they have no further cost evidence. The court therefore cannot identify a reliable repair amount from the available material. The court also cannot assume that the reasonable cost was zero merely because it is unpriced. Reasons 10. The agreement allows a deduction for tenant-caused damage, and the evidence establishes such damage. This defeats any argument that the deposit had to be returned without regard to the marks. But permission to deduct does not establish that any chosen amount is reasonable. Under the supplied rule requiring detail for deposit deductions and the rule that a remedy should match the harm, the amount must be connected to the proven repair need. 11. The whole-flat estimate does not make that connection. The handover message identifies only the bedroom marks, and Farhan accepts that repainting the entire flat was not justified. The estimate therefore cannot support keeping ₹8,000 as a fair charge for the bedroom repair. Farhan’s final acceptance of paying the balance after a reasonable charge is a concession in Leena’s favor as to the excess, but it does not establish what the reasonable charge is. The court cannot select a number without evidence supporting it. 12. Leena bears the burden of proving her request to recover the withheld amount. Her evidence establishes why the whole-flat estimate is inadequate, but it does not establish that the reasonable repair cost was zero or provide a supported amount to award. The court must distinguish the failure to prove the amount of a permissible deduction from proof that no deduction was justified. On this record, the amount attributable to the marks remains uncertain. Because Leena has not proved her entitlement to recover the full ₹8,000, her claim for that amount is not proven. This conclusion does not affirm that Farhan proved ₹8,000 to be a fair deduction. Final order 13. Leena’s claim for return of the withheld ₹8,000 is denied. No payment is ordered to either party on the present record. The court finds that the bedroom hook marks were tenant-caused and that the agreement permits a reasonable deduction for their repair, but the evidence does not establish the reasonable repair amount or justify the full ₹8,000 deduction. The claim is denied because Leena has not proved the amount she seeks to recover, not because the whole-flat repainting estimate proves that the deduction was fair.