District Court rejects tenant’s 6,000 AFN deposit claim over repainting and imposes fine

The District Court in Afghanistan dismissed Farid Ahmadi’s request for the return of his 6,000 AFN security deposit and allowed his landlord, Bashir Rahmani, to retain it for repainting. Presiding judge Chris signed the final judgment on October 13, 2026, and also imposed a 1,000 AFN fine on Ahmadi.

The dispute concerned whether repainting addressed damage caused by the tenant or refreshed walls that already needed attention. Ahmadi admitted leaving two nail holes but disputed responsibility for the wider condition of the room.

• Rahmani may retain the entire 6,000 AFN deposit to cover restoration costs; Ahmadi’s refund claim is dismissed.
• Ahmadi is found criminally responsible for intentional degradation of property and bringing a bad-faith claim, and must pay 1,000 AFN immediately to the state treasury.
• The judgment warns that further public defiance or failure to pay immediately will result in “direct corporal confinement” and declares the ruling final.

Chris said the court had reviewed photographs, the landlord’s receipt and the parties’ admissions. The judgment found that Ahmadi had degraded the room and caused observable damage, rather than merely occupied it.

The judge treated a tenant’s duty to return property unmarred as strict. Although Ahmadi relied on a message about refreshing old paint, the judgment characterised the damage as negligence causing direct financial harm to Rahmani.

The reasons leave important evidential limits unexplained. Rahmani acknowledged that the photographs did not establish when the marks appeared or who caused them, and that the receipt recorded expense rather than responsibility. The judgment does not explain how those gaps were resolved or why the admitted nail holes justified charging the full repainting cost.

Nor does it separately explain the move from negligence to intentional degradation, criminal responsibility and a bad-faith claim. It asserts authority over property preservation and social discipline but identifies no statutory provision supporting the additional punishment.

Ahmadi said the walls were worn and faded when he moved in, though he had no photographs documenting their original condition. He accepted responsibility for two nail holes and denied deliberately damaging the room.

He read a message in which Rahmani said he would repaint because the old paint needed refreshing and that they would inspect the room together first. Ahmadi acknowledged that the message did not promise an unconditional refund.

Rahmani maintained that noticeable marks around the bed required repainting costing 6,000 AFN. He said his earlier mention of repainting did not excuse tenant-caused damage, while repeatedly acknowledging the limits of his receipt and the photographic evidence.

According to Ahmadi’s account, he rented the room in Rahmani’s house for eight months and paid all rent. Rahmani used the deposit to meet the repainting bill.

During the hearing, Chris announced an adjournment to obtain photographs and later asked the parties about images presented in court. Neither party supplied move-in photographs. The resulting judgment concludes the deposit dispute, but its written reasons do not resolve the distinction between pre-existing wear, admitted nail holes and the other disputed marks.