Fatwa

Security Deposit Dispute

Fatwa #1332 Category: Business & Trade Country: Zambia Date: 20th January 2025
Fatwa #1332 Date: 20th January 2025
Category: Business & Trade
Country: Zambia

Question

Subject: Request for Advice on Security Deposit Dispute
Assalamu Alaykum,
I am seeking clarity regarding a dispute with my former landlord over deductions from my security deposit.
I initially paid $1,100 as a security deposit before renting the house. Due to an issue between me and the landlord, he asked us to vacate, and we complied.
During the inspection, the landlord instructed me to fill and paint the wall marks, which I completed at my own expense. However, upon settling the deposit, he deducted $80 for “paint refurbishment” and $50 as “supervision fees” for his own house.
Here are my concerns:
1.I already spent money on painting as per his instructions, so how can he charge for repainting without my consent?
2.None of these expenses were mentioned or agreed upon during the inspection.
3.I never hired him to supervise his own house, nor was I informed about any supervision fees during the inspection.
4.If he was dissatisfied with the paint job, he should have informed me and given me the opportunity to redo it rather than imposing additional charges.
I believe these deductions are a misuse of the security deposit and an unethical appropriation of $130.
While I would not have argued over the money, the landlord’s arrogant resistance when I raised these concerns prompted me to bring the case to a committee for justice.
I kindly request your advice on how to approach this matter from an Islamic perspective.

Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

In principle, the security deposit is an amaanah in the hands of the landlord. It serves to protect the landlord in the event there is damage caused by the tenant to the property upon vacation or eviction.

First and foremost, deductions from a security deposit require mutual consent. Secondly, general wear and tear of the property is to be borne by the landlord. Thirdly, it is the duty of the landlord to inform the tenant regarding certain clauses and conditions, failure to which, the tenant cannot be held liable thereafter.

Provided the information provided in the query is accurate and true,

  1. Late handover of the key: This charge is not permissible.[1]
  2. Supervision charges: This charge is not permissible.[2]
  3. Re-painting: Due to common current customary norms, repainting the house upon vacation is the responsibility of the tenant if stipulated in the lease agreement.[3]

Given that the tenant already undertook repainting works at his own cost, it was the duty of the landlord to liaise with the tenant if he was not happy with the works and required additional work. It is not correct for him to simply carry out some work, without the consent of the tenant, and then stipulate a charge. As such, the landlord should have sat with the tenant and laid out his requirements for the painting, which the tenant would then have been obligated to complete, provided they were within customary norms.

Given that the landlord has already carried out additional works without the tenant’s approval, it is necessary for both parties to sit and agree to a mutual fee to be charged for said works. In the case of dispute, an independent third party should analyse the situation and propose a suitable average fee.

And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best

Mufti Bilal Pandor

Concurred by

Mufti Nabeel Valli

Darul Iftaa Mahmudiyyah

Lusaka, Zambia

www.daruliftaazambia.com

 

درر الحكام شرح مجلة الأحكام – ط. العلمية (1/ 456) [1]

رَابِعُهَا – يَلْزَمُ أَنْ يَكُونَ التَّمَكُّنُ فِي مُدَّةِ الْإِجَارَةِ . وَعَلَيْهِ فَلَوْ سَلَّمَ الْآجِرُ الْمَأْجُورَ إلَى الْمُسْتَأْجِرِ فِي غَيْرِ مُدَّةِ الْإِجَارَةِ فَلَا تَلْزَمُهُ أُجْرَةٌ حَتَّى إنَّهُ لَا تَلْزَمُ الْمُسْتَأْجِرَ أُجْرَةٌ

بدائع الصنائع في ترتيب الشرائع (4/ 209) [2]

وقبض المستأجر على المؤاجر، حتى لو استأجر دابة ليركبها في حوائجه في المصر وقتا معلوما فمضى الوقت فليس عليه تسليمها إلى صاحبها بأن يمضي بها إليه، وعلى الذي أجرها أن يقبض من منزل المستأجر؛ لأن المستأجر وإن انتفع بالمستأجر لكن هذه المنفعة إنما حصلت له بعوض حصل للمؤجر فبقيت العين أمانة في يده كالوديعة، ولهذا لا يلزمه نفقتها فلم يكن عليه ردها كالوديعة، حتى لو أمسكها أياما فهلكت في يده لم يضمن شيئا سواء طلب منه المؤاجر أم لم يطلب؛ لأنه لم يلزمه الرد إلى بيته بعد الطلب، فلم يكن متعديا في الإمساك فلا يضمن.

كالمودع إذا امتنع عن رد الوديعة إلى بيت المودع حتى هلكت، وهذا بخلاف المستعار أن رده على المستعير؛ لأن نفعه له على الخلوص فكان رده عليه لقوله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – «الخراج بالضمان» ؛ ولهذا كانت نفقته عليه، فكذا مؤنة الرد.

[3] https://daruliftaazambia.com/fatwa/?id=873