BENGALURU: A Bengaluru tenant who moved out of a rented flat after his office shifted to another part of the city has won a consumer court battle over his Rs 80,000 security deposit. The III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the landlord to return the entire deposit with 9% annual interest and pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.The commission found that the landlord had failed to provide evidence of damage to the property or establish any outstanding payments that could justify withholding the money. The order was passed on September 26 by a bench comprising president Shivarama K and members Rekha Sayannavar and Suma Anilkumar.The dispute began after tenant Vireswar Mahanta decided to leave the flat following the relocation of his workplace from Nagawara to Whitefield. Mahanta had paid Rs 80,000 as a refundable security deposit and was paying monthly rent of Rs 25,000. According to the complaint, he informed landlord Basireddy Kondareddy on March 16, 2026, about his decision to vacate the property.He handed over the keys and possession on March 30, claiming that the flat had been left in good condition. However, the security deposit was not returned. Mahanta alleged that the landlord repeatedly avoided his requests and told him during a WhatsApp call on April 16 that the money would be returned only after another tenant was found for the flat.The tenant argued that the rental agreement did not require him to wait for a replacement occupant before receiving his deposit. After a legal notice sent on April 30 went unanswered, he approached the consumer commission seeking the refund, 12% annual interest, Rs 1 lakh in compensation for mental agony and financial hardship, and Rs 25,000 towards legal expenses.Kondareddy disputed the allegations, maintaining that Mahanta had not given the three months’ advance notice stipulated under Clause 7 of their rental agreement. He also argued that the deposit could be used to recover outstanding rent, utility bills, maintenance charges and expenses incurred on repairs or damage to the property.The commission examined the rental agreement, payment records, WhatsApp conversations, photographs and a video recording of the flat placed on record by Mahanta. It noted that the landlord had acknowledged receiving the Rs 80,000 deposit. However, he had not produced convincing evidence of damage to the premises or provided a satisfactory account of any unpaid bills or other outstanding dues.The commission also took note of the tenant’s payment records, which showed that he had paid rent for four months without default. It said a landlord could not retain the entire security deposit indefinitely merely on the ground that deductions might be necessary. The commission held that withholding the deposit without evidence to support the proposed deductions amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.It directed Kondareddy to return Rs 80,000 with 9% annual interest, calculated from March 30, 2026, when Mahanta handed over the flat, until the amount is realised. The landlord was also ordered to pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, taking the principal amount payable to Rs 90,000, apart from interest.He has been given 45 days to comply with the order. The commission further directed that if the landlord fails to pay within the stipulated period, the Rs 10,000 litigation cost will also attract interest at 9% per annum from September 29, 2026, until realisation.
