Pune rental deposit dispute settles for ₹1,000 with mutual release
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
Revathi Menon and Nikhil Deshpande agreed to resolve the dispute over a ₹6,000 deposit deduction through a ₹1,000 payment and a limited mutual release.
The settlement agreement
A rental-deposit dispute between Revathi Menon and Nikhil Deshpande has been settled on terms requiring a ₹1,000 payment within seven days after execution of a written settlement. The dispute concerned Menon's request for the remaining ₹6,000 from her deposit.
The recorded settlement does not determine whether the deduction for repainting was justified. It records no admission of liability by either side.
- ₹1,000 to be paid within seven days after the written settlement is executed.
- The parties will give mutual releases limited to tenancy and deposit claims.
- The settlement contains no admission of liability.
The agreed terms
The parties agreed that the settlement payment would be ₹1,000, rather than the full ₹6,000 sought by Menon as the balance of the deposit.
Their mutual release is confined to claims arising from the tenancy and deposit. The record does not set out any broader release or any finding on the condition of the premises.
The parties' positions
Deshpande's recorded position was that he had returned ₹14,000 of the deposit and retained ₹6,000 for preparation and repainting of one room. He relied on an invoice for ₹6,000 and on his understanding that the agreement permitted deductions for tenant-caused damage beyond ordinary wear.
He maintained that dark and conspicuous wall marks required repainting and went beyond ordinary use. At the same time, the record noted that the cause and timing of the marks were unknown, their exact size was not recalled, and no photographs had been taken.
Menon's stated claim was for return of the remaining ₹6,000 deposit. The settlement resolves that claim on the recorded terms without a determination of fault.
The background
The dispute arose after Menon vacated the premises. The recorded timeline states that a deposit was paid, dark marks were found on the walls of one room, the room was repainted for ₹6,000, and ₹14,000 of the deposit balance was returned to Menon.
The agreement was understood to allow deductions for damage beyond ordinary wear, but it imposed no automatic repainting charge. The ₹6,000 invoice for preparation and repainting one room was identified as corroborated material.
The settlement brings the tenancy and deposit claims to an end only to the extent of the agreed mutual release. It does not establish whether the marks were caused by Menon, whether they exceeded ordinary wear, or whether the original ₹6,000 deduction was justified.