District Court grants tenant return of 6,000 AFN deposit withheld for repainting

The District Court ruled on October 12, 2026 that Farid Akbari was entitled to the return of his 6,000 AFN tenancy deposit, rejecting Hamid Safi’s claim to retain it for repainting. Presiding judge Chris signed the judgment, finding the evidence insufficient to establish Hamid’s claim.

The dispute concerned a sitting-room wall in a small rented home in Herat. Farid said its dark marks were already there when he moved in; Hamid said the room looked noticeably worse when Farid left and needed repainting before another tenant could move in.

The formal judgment rested on the insufficiency of the evidence supporting Hamid’s claim. It also noted that Farid had supplied a photograph and acknowledged shortcomings in his own testimony, but did not give a detailed explanation of how the evidence was weighed.

The material presented left a distinction between the cost of repainting and responsibility for the wall’s condition. Hamid described an invoice dated two days after the keys were returned, listing sitting-room preparation and repainting for 6,000 AFN. He acknowledged that it neither described particular damage nor identified who caused it.

Farid’s move-in photograph and accompanying dated message offered evidence of some pre-existing marks. But he accepted that the photograph showed only part of the wall and did not establish its condition when he left.

The judgment also stated that people must be paid for work they perform, regardless of the outcome. It did not explain how that observation affected this dispute or make a separate payment direction.

Farid sought the full deposit back, saying he returned the home in much the same condition as he received it. He acknowledged that he had no signed condition report and that his photograph could not prove there had been no additional damage.

He told the court that the dated message beside the photograph recorded the marks when he received the keys, and that Hamid had replied that they could discuss painting later.

Hamid sought to keep the deposit as reimbursement. He said he had seen the room looking worse, paid the painter’s invoice and considered repainting necessary. He accepted that he had no photographs from before the tenancy and could not use a photograph to establish what caused the marks.

The parties’ relationship was that of landlord and tenant. Their competing accounts concerned whether repainting addressed deterioration during Farid’s tenancy or marks that already existed.

The decision resolves entitlement to the deposit, not the precise history of every mark on the wall. The formal judgment does not expressly find that Farid caused no additional damage; it finds that Hamid’s evidence was insufficient to establish his claim to the money.