Settlement provides ₹10,000 payment in Pune rental deposit dispute over repainting

A settlement provides for payment of ₹10,000 within seven days to resolve Leena Kulkarni’s claim for ₹12,000 withheld from her rental deposit for repainting a Pune flat. The dispute, associated with the Civil court in Pune in the supplied record, ends by agreement rather than a recorded judicial ruling on whether the deduction was justified.

The central disagreement was whether faded paint after an eighteen-month tenancy amounted to damage chargeable to the tenant, or ordinary wear that the landlord had to bear. A related question concerned Kulkarni’s offer to arrange a painter: she disputed that it amounted to an agreement to pay for repainting.

The settlement payment is ₹2,000 less than the amount Kulkarni sought. The recorded terms specify:

• Payment of ₹10,000 within seven days.
• A mutual release limited to the deposit and repainting dispute.
• No admission of fault.
• Payment fully resolves this claim.

Kulkarni’s position rested on the signed rental agreement, which recorded a ₹30,000 deposit and allowed deductions for damage beyond ordinary wear. She maintained that it did not permit an automatic repainting deduction and described the flat as clean, with ordinarily faded paint.

A WhatsApp exchange recorded her offer to arrange a painter before handing over the keys. According to her account, Sameer Merchant had asked her to arrange one, then said he would book his own painter. She distinguished offering to organise the work from accepting responsibility for its cost.

Merchant retained ₹12,000 for repainting after returning ₹18,000. The record contains no separate submission from him explaining why the paint condition justified that charge or how he interpreted the painter exchange.

Kulkarni rented the flat from Merchant for eighteen months before moving out and handing it over. Her account states that the ₹18,000 refund was paid in cash; transaction histories for both the original deposit and that refund were unavailable.

The evidence also had limits on the issue at the heart of the dispute. No move-out photographs were taken, and proof that repainting was actually completed was unavailable. The agreement and messages therefore documented the contractual terms and painter discussion, but did not themselves establish the flat’s condition at departure.

The settlement resolves the monetary claim without deciding whether the paint was damaged beyond ordinary wear or whether the painter offer created an obligation to pay. The recorded payment term is not confirmation that payment has been made.