The Move-In & Lock-In Clause: Ritika Deshmukh, a software engineer in Pune, moved into a twin-sharing executive PG in Hinjewadi Phase 2 on 1 July at a monthly rent of ₹18,000, paying a 2-month refundable security deposit of ₹36,000 via UPI. The PG onboarding form contained a 6-month lock-in period and a 30-day notice period clause.
The Dispute & Unilateral Forfeiture:In late September (month 3), the PG's common RO water purifier broke down for 12 days, dinner catering was repeatedly cancelled, and Ritika was shifted to her company's Kharadi office. On 28 September, she sent a 30-day written vacating notice on WhatsApp for 28 October. When she vacated on 28 October and handed over the keys, the PG owner refused to return a single rupee of her ₹36,000 deposit—claiming (1) full forfeiture for leaving before the 6-month lock-in expired, and (2) ₹3,500 for room repainting and bed sanitization. Worse, another IT employee moved into Ritika's vacated bed on 1 November.
The Statutory Legal Notice: Ritika initiated a notice through LegalRecovery.in. Our advocate served a 15-day statutory demand notice via Registered Speed Post, Email, and WhatsApp to the PG proprietor, citing: (1) Section 39 of the Indian Contract Act (repudiation due to the PG's failure to provide potable RO water and meals), (2) Section 74 of the Contract Act & Kailash Nath v. DDA (zero vacancy loss since the bed was re-occupied within 3 days on 1 November, making forfeiture an illegal penalty), and (3) Section 2(11) & 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ahead of an e-Jagriti complaint.
The Settlement Outcome (Day 9):Faced with a documented Section 74 claim, timestamped photos of the broken RO plant, proof that the bed was already re-occupied, and imminent consumer court litigation, the PG owner contacted the advocate on Day 7. After deducting only ₹680 for Ritika's verified October sub-meter electricity share, the owner refunded ₹35,320 via IMPS on Day 9.