Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Ayesha Nadeem seeks return of a PKR 40,000 security deposit paid to Bilal Farooq for a flat in Lahore. Bilal accepts that the deposit was paid but asks to retain PKR 8,000 for an estimated bedroom-door repair and return PKR 32,000. Ayesha asks for the full deposit. The hearing record contains a signed deposit receipt, a photograph of the door, a carpenter’s WhatsApp estimate, and the parties’ submissions. No further evidence is available in this hearing. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether Ayesha paid the PKR 40,000 deposit and whether Bilal has proved a basis to deduct PKR 8,000 for the door. Under Rule 1, a party seeking relief must support it with facts, records, or testimony. The supplied rental rules also require deposit deductions to be detailed and tied to actual costs, distinguish ordinary wear from misconduct, and require proof of damage value. Submissions of the parties 3. Ayesha relies on the signed receipt and asks for the full deposit. She says she remembers a mark on the door when she moved in, but expressly acknowledges that she has no move-in or move-out record and no witness to confirm its condition. She argues that the photo and estimate do not show when the damage occurred or who caused it, and that the estimate is not a bill for completed work. 4. Bilal accepts the deposit but seeks to retain PKR 8,000 and return PKR 32,000. His submissions emphasize that the photo shows a damaged door and invoke the rule distinguishing ordinary wear from misconduct. His final submissions repeat that the photo shows damage, but do not provide further evidence about when the damage occurred or who caused it. Evidence and findings 5. The signed receipt records Ayesha’s PKR 40,000 deposit. Bilal accepts payment. The receipt is a direct, reliable record of the amount paid, and the payment is established. 6. The door photograph shows damage. Its stated limitation is important: it does not establish when the damage occurred. The carpenter’s WhatsApp message estimates that repair could cost PKR 8,000. It is evidence of a proposed repair estimate, not proof that work was completed or that Bilal incurred that expense. Neither item identifies who caused the damage. 7. Ayesha’s recollection that a mark existed at move-in is an attributed account, not an independently confirmed condition record. She acknowledges that limitation. The record therefore does not establish that the damage predated the tenancy; equally, it does not establish that it arose during the tenancy or was caused by Ayesha. The uncertainty remains unresolved by the evidence presented. Reasons 8. Ayesha has met her burden to establish payment of the deposit through the signed receipt, supported by Bilal’s acceptance. The remaining question is whether Bilal may retain part of it. Bilal seeks that deduction, so he bears the burden of supporting its factual basis and amount. The deposit-deduction rule calls for a deduction to be itemized and tied to actual costs; the damage-value rule likewise requires proof of condition, cause, repair cost, or loss. 9. Bilal’s evidence proves that the door was damaged when photographed and that a carpenter estimated a possible repair cost of PKR 8,000. Those facts deserve weight, but they do not prove the essential connection between the damage and Ayesha’s tenancy or conduct. The photo has no established timing, and the estimate addresses cost only. The record contains no condition comparison, witness, completed repair bill, or other evidence connecting Ayesha to the damage. The court does not treat the absence of Ayesha’s condition records as proof against her: the burden to justify the deduction rests on Bilal. 10. Rule 9 distinguishes ordinary wear from negligent or intentional damage. The record does not permit a finding that this damage was ordinary wear, but neither does it permit a finding that Ayesha caused exceptional damage. Bilal’s reliance on the photo establishes the existence of damage, not responsibility. Because the evidence does not resolve that gap, the deduction is not proven. This conclusion does not find that Ayesha’s recollection about a pre-existing mark is true; it finds only that Bilal has not carried his burden to justify withholding the amount. 11. Bilal’s request is for a reduced deduction of PKR 8,000 rather than a larger amount. That change narrows the requested withholding, but it does not cure the missing proof of responsibility or establish an actual repair cost. Ayesha’s request for the full deposit is supported by the established payment and the failure of the proposed deduction. No separate claim or supported amount is presented that would justify a different monetary result. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for Ayesha Nadeem. Bilal Farooq must return PKR 40,000 to Ayesha, representing the full security deposit. Bilal’s request to retain PKR 8,000 for the door is denied. This order awards no additional amount, interest, or costs because none is supported by the supplied record. The result rests on the proof available in this hearing and does not determine who caused the door damage.