Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Salim Al Harthi, the plaintiff, rented a flat from Nasser Al Maawali, the defendant. The record states that the plaintiff paid a deposit of OMR 300. The defendant returned OMR 220 and retained OMR 80, saying it was for repainting the bedroom wall. The plaintiff disputes that deduction and seeks the return of the withheld amount. 2. The parties were invited to explain their positions and identify supporting proof. The defendant confirmed that he has no repainting receipt, estimate, or other cost record. Both parties have now made their final submissions. No further proof is identified as obtainable, and the matter is ready for decision on the available record. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the defendant proved that the marks requiring repainting were caused during the tenancy rather than being pre-existing or ordinary wear. The defendant bears the burden of supporting the deduction he made from the deposit. 4. The second issue is whether the defendant proved that OMR 80 was tied to actual repainting work and a reasonable cost. The supplied deposit rule calls for a deduction to be detailed and tied to actual costs; the remedy must also match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 5. The plaintiff says the bedroom-wall marks existed when he moved in and that he reported them at handover. He relies on the message recording the parties’ exchange and asks for the withheld OMR 80. He has no separate photograph, inspection note, or witness to establish the wall’s condition. 6. The defendant says the plaintiff reported marks near the socket, but that does not establish that every mark later seen was already present. The defendant points out that the message records disagreement, not agreement about responsibility. He asks the court to deny or reduce the refund because the plaintiff has not proved his account. The defendant also acknowledges that he has no receipt, estimate, or other record showing that repainting occurred or what it cost. Evidence and findings 7. The shared WhatsApp message, presented as exhibits 2-e1, 4-e1, and 6-e1, states that the deposit was OMR 300, OMR 220 was returned, and OMR 80 was kept for bedroom-wall repainting. The plaintiff replied that the marks were present when he arrived; the defendant responded that there were several marks at handover. The message is useful evidence of the deposit amounts, the stated reason for withholding money, and the parties’ disagreement. It does not establish either party’s account of who caused the marks. 8. The plaintiff’s submissions (statements 1, 3, and 5) consistently assert that marks predated the tenancy. Those statements are attributed accounts, not independent inspection evidence. The defendant’s submissions (statements 2, 4, and 6) likewise assert that the message does not show all marks were pre-existing. The defendant’s admission that he has no cost record is direct evidence of the limits of his proof. Neither side produced a move-in or move-out photograph, inspection note, witness account, or repair-cost document. Reasons 9. On the wall-condition-and-cause issue, the defendant bears the burden because he relies on the condition of the wall to justify keeping part of the deposit. The message proves that marks were discussed at handover, but it does not identify the marks later said to require repainting or show when they arose. The plaintiff’s account is consistent with his position, but it is not independently confirmed. The defendant is right that the plaintiff’s account is not conclusively established. That does not, however, transfer the burden to the plaintiff: the defendant must support the deduction. On this record, the defendant has not shown that the marks requiring repainting were caused during the tenancy rather than being pre-existing or ordinary wear. This issue is not proven against the plaintiff. The relevant supplied rules are the burden-of-proof rule, the rule favoring reliable records over vague accounts, and the rule distinguishing ordinary wear from damage. 10. On the amount issue, the message proves that the defendant withheld OMR 80 for the stated purpose of repainting. It does not prove that repainting was carried out, what it cost, or why OMR 80 was a reasonable charge. The defendant expressly confirms that no receipt, estimate, or other cost record exists. Under the supplied rule that deposit deductions need detail and a connection to actual costs, the stated purpose alone is insufficient. The proportional-remedy rule also requires the deduction to match proven harm. The defendant has not met that burden. 11. The defendant argues that the same uncertainty should prevent a refund because the plaintiff has not proved that all marks were present at move-in. That argument correctly identifies uncertainty in the plaintiff’s account, but it does not answer the defendant’s burden to justify retaining the deposit. The court does not find as a fact that every mark was pre-existing. Rather, the court finds that the defendant has not proved a basis or amount for the deduction. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the OMR 80 that remains withheld. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Salim Al Harthi. The defendant, Nasser Al Maawali, must pay the plaintiff OMR 80, representing the unsupported balance withheld from the OMR 300 deposit after OMR 220 was returned. 13. The plaintiff’s claim for that OMR 80 is granted in full. No additional amount is awarded because none is supported by the record. This order does not determine who caused the wall marks; it reflects the defendant’s failure to prove the basis and cost of the deposit deduction.