Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leena Kulkarni, the plaintiff, seeks the remaining ₹8,000 of a ₹20,000 rental deposit from Farhan Shaikh, the defendant. The parties do not dispute that ₹12,000 has already been returned. The plaintiff asks for the remaining ₹8,000 and does not seek additional damages. 2. The signed rental agreement records the deposit and permits deductions for tenant-caused damage while excluding ordinary wear. The dispute is whether the defendant was entitled to retain the remaining amount for painting after two hook marks appeared in the plaintiff’s room. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether the plaintiff has proved that the ₹8,000 withheld from the deposit should be returned, considering the agreement, the acknowledged hook marks, and the painting expense described by the defendant. Submissions of the parties 4. The plaintiff acknowledges that two hook marks came from her hooks. She argues that the agreement permits deductions for damage, not an ordinary room refresh, and that the whole-room painting invoice does not show what repairing the marks reasonably cost or why they required repainting the entire room. She says no separate estimate or other proof is available and seeks the remaining ₹8,000. 5. The defendant says the plaintiff acknowledged the marks in WhatsApp messages and that a painter charged ₹8,000 to repaint the whole room. The defendant argues that the agreement permits a deduction for tenant-caused damage. At the same time, the defendant acknowledges that the invoice does not itemize the cost attributable to the marks and that there is no photograph, inspection report, or separate estimate showing why a whole-room repaint was necessary. The defendant asks the court to determine whether any deduction was justified. Evidence and findings 6. The signed rental agreement is a presented exhibit. Its terms establish a ₹20,000 refundable deposit, allow deductions for tenant-caused damage, and exclude ordinary wear. The parties do not dispute that ₹12,000 was returned. The agreement does not itself establish the cause or amount of any particular repair cost. 7. The plaintiff’s repeated submissions acknowledge two hook marks caused by her hooks. The defendant describes WhatsApp messages in which the plaintiff acknowledged the marks and asked about repair cost. The messages themselves are not separately presented in the record; the defendant’s account supports the acknowledgment, and the plaintiff independently confirms it. I find that the two marks were tenant-caused. 8. The defendant’s submissions describe a painter’s invoice for ₹8,000 for repainting the whole room. The invoice is described but is not separately presented as an exhibit in the supplied record. I accept the defendant’s account as support that a painting expense of that amount was incurred. That account does not establish that the entire expense was caused by the two marks. The defendant expressly acknowledges the absence of proof explaining why the marks required a whole-room repaint or what repairing them alone would cost. Reasons 9. Under Rule 1, the side seeking relief must support its request with facts or records. The plaintiff seeks return of the remaining deposit. The agreement establishes the deposit and the amount returned, but it also permits deductions for tenant-caused damage. The plaintiff’s acknowledgment of the marks means the record does not support treating the entire dispute as an ordinary-wear deduction. 10. Rule 9 distinguishes ordinary wear from tenant-caused damage. The two hook marks are established as tenant-caused damage, but the record does not establish the extent of the repair reasonably attributable to them. Rule 11 favors deductions that are itemized and tied to actual costs. The defendant’s account supports an actual painting expense, but the whole-room amount is not itemized by cause and does not show why repainting the whole room was necessary. Rule 6 also requires a remedy to match the proven harm; it would not be justified to treat the entire painting bill as caused by the marks on this record. 11. Those shortcomings do not, however, prove the plaintiff’s requested refund. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the claim for the remaining ₹8,000. The plaintiff has not shown that the withheld amount was unrelated to the acknowledged damage, or established a smaller amount that should be returned after a reasonable deduction. The defendant’s evidence is insufficient to establish that the full ₹8,000 was attributable to the marks, but the plaintiff’s burden is not satisfied merely by showing that the defendant’s proof does not itemize the expense. The record leaves the amount attributable to the marks uncertain, and no further obtainable proof has been identified by either side. 12. I therefore find the plaintiff has not proved entitlement to the remaining ₹8,000. This conclusion is limited: it does not find that the two marks caused the full painting expense, or that the whole-room repaint was necessary. It resolves the claim on the available record and the plaintiff’s burden of proof. The defendant prevails because the plaintiff’s requested relief is not established, not because the full painting cost has been proven to be damage caused by the plaintiff. Final order 13. The plaintiff’s claim for return of the remaining ₹8,000 is denied. No additional damages were requested, and none are awarded. The defendant is not ordered to pay the plaintiff any amount. The judgment does not determine that the full ₹8,000 painting expense was caused by the hook marks; it determines only that the plaintiff has not proved a right to recover the withheld balance on this record.