A Bengaluru consumer commission has directed a landlord to return a tenant’s Rs 80,000 security deposit with 9% annual interest and pay Rs 10,000 in litigation costs after finding no convincing evidence of property damage or unpaid dues to justify withholding the money.
The order was passed on September 26 by the III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising president Shivarama K and members Rekha Sayannavar and Suma Anilkumar. The commission gave landlord Basireddy Kondareddy 45 days to comply.
The dispute involved tenant Vireswar Mahanta, who moved out of a rented flat after his workplace shifted from Nagawara to Whitefield. Mahanta had paid a refundable security deposit of Rs 80,000 and monthly rent of Rs 25,000. According to his complaint, he informed the landlord on March 16, 2026, that he intended to vacate and handed over the keys and possession on March 30.
Mahanta said the flat had been left in good condition, but the deposit was not returned. He alleged that the landlord told him during a WhatsApp call on April 16 that the money would be refunded only after a new tenant was found. The tenant maintained 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, Mahanta approached the consumer commission. He sought the return of the deposit, 12% annual interest, Rs 1 lakh in compensation for mental agony and financial hardship, and Rs 25,000 in legal expenses.
Kondareddy disputed the complaint, arguing that Mahanta had failed to provide the three months’ advance notice specified in Clause 7 of the rental agreement. The landlord also contended that the deposit could be adjusted against unpaid rent, utility bills, maintenance charges, repairs or damage to the property.
The commission examined the rental agreement, payment records, WhatsApp conversations, photographs and a video recording of the flat submitted by Mahanta. It noted that the landlord had acknowledged receiving the deposit but had not produced convincing evidence of damage, unpaid bills or other outstanding amounts. Payment records also showed that the tenant had paid four months of rent without default.
The commission said a landlord could not retain an entire security deposit indefinitely merely because deductions might be necessary. It held that withholding the amount without evidence supporting the proposed deductions amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
Kondareddy was ordered to refund Rs 80,000 with 9% annual interest calculated from March 30, 2026, when Mahanta handed over the flat, until realisation. The Rs 10,000 litigation cost takes the principal amount payable to Rs 90,000, excluding interest.
The commission further directed that if the landlord fails to pay within the stipulated 45-day period, the litigation cost will also attract 9% annual interest from September 29, 2026, until payment is made.
