Lahore rent tribunal orders full deposit returned after disputed door damage
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
A door photograph showed damage and a carpenter estimated repairs at PKR 8,000, but neither established when the damage occurred or who caused it.
The decision
The rent tribunal in Lahore has ordered Bilal Farooq to return Ayesha Nadeem’s full PKR 40,000 security deposit, rejecting his request to keep PKR 8,000 for an estimated bedroom-door repair.
Ayesha sought the entire deposit for the flat. Bilal accepted that she had paid it but wanted to deduct the estimated repair cost and return the remaining PKR 32,000.
The court's reasons
The tribunal found that a signed receipt, supported by Bilal’s acceptance of payment, established the deposit amount. Bilal, as the party seeking a deduction, had to support its factual basis and amount.
A photograph showed that the bedroom door was damaged, while a carpenter’s WhatsApp message estimated a repair at PKR 8,000. But the photograph did not establish when the damage occurred, and neither item identified who caused it. The message was an estimate, not proof that the work was completed or the expense incurred.
The tribunal said the applicable rules required deposit deductions to be detailed and tied to actual costs, and distinguished ordinary wear from negligent or intentional damage. The evidence did not permit a finding that the damage was ordinary wear, but it also did not establish that Ayesha caused exceptional damage.
Reducing the proposed deduction to PKR 8,000 did not resolve the missing proof of responsibility or establish an actual repair cost. The tribunal awarded no additional amount, interest or costs.
The parties' submissions
Ayesha said she remembered a mark on the door when she moved in, but acknowledged that she had no move-in or move-out record and no witness to confirm its condition. She argued that the photograph and estimate did not connect the damage to her and that the estimate was not a bill for completed work.
Bilal’s submissions emphasized that the photograph showed a damaged door and referred to the distinction between ordinary wear and misconduct. He sought to retain PKR 8,000 and return PKR 32,000, but provided no further evidence about when the damage occurred or who caused it.
The background
Bilal said he found the bedroom-door damage after Ayesha left and asked a carpenter about repairs. He retained the deposit because he believed it would cover the work; the door was not repaired.
The tribunal did not decide who caused the damage or find that Ayesha’s recollection of a pre-existing mark was true. Its order rested on the evidence available at the hearing and Bilal’s failure to justify the proposed deduction.