District Court directs return of ₹6,000 withheld from tenant’s security deposit

The District Court directed Shalini Deshpande to return ₹6,000 withheld from Nikhil Menon’s ₹20,000 security deposit for a bedroom fan replacement. The court accepted Menon’s claim that he had a legitimate grievance concerning the fan during his tenancy and held that he was entitled to succeed.

Menon had sought return of the withheld amount after Deshpande refunded ₹14,000 of the deposit. Deshpande had maintained that the deduction was for a replacement fan installed after Menon vacated the one-bedroom flat in Kothrud, Pune.

In its formal order signed on September 15, 2026, the court said the deducted sum “shall be returned to the plaintiff, so that the entire deposit is refunded.”

• Deshpande must return ₹6,000 to Menon.
• The order results in refund of the full ₹20,000 security deposit.

The court found that Menon had raised a legitimate issue about the fan during the tenancy. It further found that Deshpande did not address that complaint in time, accepting that this followed her misjudgment that the fan did not require repair at that stage.

The formal judgment recorded that, after Menon vacated, Deshpande observed the fan and realised that it was “wobbly, broken and in need of repair.” On those findings, the court held that Menon was entitled to recover the amount deducted from his deposit.

The record also showed that Deshpande could not state the fan’s exact age and did not produce a receipt for the claimed ₹6,000 replacement expense. The court’s order, however, rested on its findings about the tenant’s complaint and the landlord’s failure to address it in time.

“The Court finds that the plaintiff had a legitimate grievance in relation to the broken fan during the tenancy.”

Menon said he paid the ₹20,000 deposit by UPI and left the flat clean. He contended that the bedroom fan was already noisy and slow when he moved in, that he informed Deshpande of the issue during the tenancy, and that he did not damage it.

He relied on a WhatsApp exchange in which, after the deduction, he said the fan had been making noise when he moved in. Menon said he had not been shown a repair bill or other proof that ₹6,000 had actually been spent on a replacement.

Deshpande submitted that the fan was working when Menon moved in and was found bent and wobbling after he returned the keys. She said she replaced it before showing the flat to another tenant and informed Menon of the ₹6,000 deduction through WhatsApp.

During questioning, Deshpande said she did not know the original installation date or exact age of the fan. She also said she did not have a receipt to show the court. She accepted that Menon had raised the issue during the tenancy, while maintaining that she did not treat it then as a repair requiring action.

The dispute arose from Menon’s tenancy in Deshpande’s one-bedroom flat in Kothrud, Pune. Menon said he paid a ₹20,000 security deposit and received ₹14,000 back after vacating, with ₹6,000 retained for a fan replacement.

The parties differed on the fan’s condition at the start and end of the tenancy. Menon said it was already defective and that he had raised the issue; Deshpande said it had been working when he moved in but was bent and wobbling after he left.

The recorded outcome is limited to the ₹6,000 deduction from this deposit. The court ordered its return on the findings recorded in the formal judgment.