Landlord kept ₹10,000 for painting and power: Pune court orders its return

Ananya Kulkarni said she paid Raghav Mehta a ₹20,000 security deposit for a rented flat in Pune. After giving notice and vacating, she received ₹10,000 back; the remaining ₹10,000 was retained.

Mehta attributed the retention to painting and electricity after move-out. Kulkarni sought return of the deposit except for any genuinely due and proven amount.

• Deposit paid: ₹20,000
• Monthly rent: ₹18,000
• Amount withheld: ₹10,000
• Court: Civil Court, Pune

The record established the deposit amount, the ₹10,000 withholding and the landlord’s stated reasons of painting and electricity. WhatsApp messages also showed Kulkarni asking when the deposit would be returned and Mehta saying he would check those charges.

But the record contained no itemized deduction letter, receipts, invoice, condition report or exact division between painting and electricity.

• WhatsApp messages supported that deductions were being considered.
• No proper bill supported the retained ₹10,000.
• No evidence showed what amount was for painting or electricity.

Cookie man, appearing for Kulkarni, repeatedly focused on the absence of proof for the deduction. The advocacy identified the deposit, the withheld amount and the missing itemization.

The opposing submissions accepted that the record did not fully itemize or prove actual costs. They maintained that the messages showed the landlord had at least raised painting and electricity as possible move-out charges.

• Kulkarni’s position: no proof justified any retention.
• Mehta’s position: painting and electricity were being checked, but the record did not establish the full ₹10,000.

The winning point was narrow and evidence-led: a landlord retaining money from a security deposit needed specific support for the deduction. A general reference to painting and electricity did not establish the actual amount chargeable.

The WhatsApp exchange helped only to show that costs were contemplated. It did not replace receipts, a breakdown or proof that the charges arose from tenant-caused damage rather than ordinary turnover.

• Tie the retained sum to documents and actual costs.
• Separate a possible charge from proof of a charge.
• Use written messages for what they actually establish, not more.

The Civil Court, Pune found for Kulkarni on the security-deposit deduction issue and ordered Mehta to pay ₹10,000.

The court held that Mehta had not justified retaining the money because there was no itemized deduction letter, receipt or other actual-cost proof. It rejected the request for anything beyond ₹10,000 because the record showed that ₹10,000 had already been returned and did not establish another unpaid amount.

The defendant’s justification for withholding the ₹10,000 is rejected for lack of itemization and actual-cost proof.

• Disposition: partial relief
• Amount awarded: ₹10,000
• The landlord’s justification for the ₹10,000 retention was rejected.

Cookie man secured the key recovery by keeping the hearing focused on the missing proof behind the deduction. The court specifically credited the identification of the ₹10,000 withholding and the lack of an itemized deduction letter or actual-cost records.

The final score was 24 for the player and 16 for the opponent.

• Strength: centered the case on the landlord’s burden to prove deductions.
• Strength: clearly identified the deposit and withheld amount.
• Result: recovery of the entire disputed ₹10,000.

Cookie man repeatedly asked for the full ₹20,000 even though the visible dispute concerned the ₹10,000 that had been retained. That overstatement did not change the result, but it gave the court a reason to frame the outcome as partial relief.

The submissions also repeated the lack-of-proof point without adding further record detail, such as the absence of a condition report, invoices or a split between the two claimed charges.

• The remedy should have been framed as return of the withheld ₹10,000.
• The argument could have more precisely linked each missing document to each claimed charge.

The decision shows that a landlord’s broad explanation for retaining a deposit is not enough by itself. Where the retained sum is challenged, itemization and actual-cost support matter.

It also illustrates the limited value of a message saying charges are being checked: it may show a possible basis for inquiry, but it does not prove that a particular deduction was justified.

• Tenants should preserve deposit-payment records and written follow-ups.
• Landlords should provide timely, itemized deductions with supporting records.
• A claim for repair or utility costs is stronger when it identifies the amount, timing and proof.

A more precise advocate for Kulkarni could have avoided seeking the already returned ₹10,000 and asked directly for the disputed balance. That would have aligned the relief with the evidence from the start.

For Mehta, a different advocate could not overcome the central evidentiary gap without records. Receipts, an electricity bill, a move-out condition report or a clear itemized calculation might have supported a limited deduction, but none appeared in this record.

• Better claimant framing: seek ₹10,000, the amount actually retained.
• Better landlord proof: invoices, utility records, condition evidence and an itemized statement.

Would you have narrowed the claim to the ₹10,000 withheld, or pressed for the full deposit? Take on a similar rental-deposit dispute in Legal Arena.