Seeb rental forum orders OMR 80 deposit refund over unsupported repainting deduction

The rental dispute forum serving Seeb has ordered a landlord to return OMR 80 withheld from a tenant’s deposit for bedroom-wall repainting, granting the tenant’s claim in full. The landlord had not proved either that the tenant was responsible for the marks or that the deduction reflected repainting costs.

Salim Al Harthi said the marks were already there when he moved in; landlord Nasser Al Maawali disputed whether that explanation covered every mark later seen. The decision did not resolve who caused them. Instead, it turned on whether the landlord had justified keeping the money.

The forum awarded no additional amount beyond the outstanding OMR 80.

The forum treated the shared WhatsApp exchange as evidence of the deposit amounts and the stated reason for the deduction—not proof of responsibility for the wall’s condition. It recorded an OMR 300 deposit, an OMR 220 refund and OMR 80 retained for repainting, alongside the parties’ conflicting accounts.

Neither side produced photographs, an inspection note or a witness account establishing the wall’s condition. The landlord was therefore right that the tenant had not conclusively shown every mark was pre-existing. But that uncertainty did not shift the burden: the landlord, as the person retaining the deposit, had to support the deduction.

The proof of cost was also missing. Al Maawali acknowledged that he had no receipt, estimate or other record showing that repainting occurred or what it cost. Merely stating a purpose for withholding money did not establish that OMR 80 was an actual, reasonable charge.

Applying the supplied rules requiring detailed deductions tied to actual costs and a remedy matching proven harm, the forum found both the basis and amount of the deduction unproved.

Al Harthi maintained that he had reported grey marks near a bedroom socket at the start of the tenancy. He sought the remaining deposit balance on the ground that pre-existing marks were not his responsibility.

Al Maawali argued that reporting marks near the socket did not establish that all marks visible at the end of the tenancy had been there at move-in. He stressed that the messages recorded disagreement, not acceptance of the tenant’s account.

Acknowledging the absence of cost records, the landlord nevertheless asked the forum to deny or reduce the refund because of the uncertainty about the marks. The forum rejected that approach because it did not answer his obligation to justify retaining the money.

Al Harthi rented the Seeb flat for one year. After the tenancy ended, Al Maawali returned OMR 220 of the OMR 300 deposit and notified him that the balance had been kept for bedroom-wall repainting.

The resulting exchange captured the dispute but could not settle it: the tenant said the marks were present when he arrived, while the landlord referred to several marks at handover. The order restores the unsupported deduction without finding that every mark predated the tenancy or determining who caused the marks.