We are living in California. In our lease agreement, it states under the "condition" section:
Tenant acknowledges these items are clean and operable condition, with the following exceptions: Tenant acknowledges that the building and everything in it is new.
Now we plan to move out. The house has regular wear-and-tear, no excessive wear. The landlord says he will renovate the house at our expense to bring it back to "new" condition.
We say it is unlawful to demand a house back in "new" condition that has appropriate wear-and-tear. It also states in the contract:
All or any portion of the security deposit may be used, as reasonably necessary, to: (i) cure Tenant's default in payment of Rent (which includes Late Charges, NSF fees or other sums due); (ii) repair damage, excluding ordinary wear and tear, caused by Tenant or by a guest or licensee of Tenant; (iii) clean Premises, if necessary, upon termination of the tenancy; and (iv) replace or return personal property or appurtenances. SECURITY DEPOSIT SHALL NOT BE USED BY TENANT IN LIEU OF PAYMENT OF LAST MONTH'S RENT. If all or any portion of the security deposit is used during the tenancy, Tenant agrees to reinstate the total security deposit within five days after written notice is delivered to Tenant. Within 21 days after Tenant vacates the Premises, Landlord shall: (1) furnish Tenant an itemized statement indicating the amount of any security deposit received and the basis for its disposition and supporting documentation as required by California Civil Code § 1950.5(g); and (2) return any remaining portion of the security deposit to Tenant.
Who is right?