真不明白,有些人难道连google都不会用?不知道还瞎说一气!

房东只能charge LZ 超过"normal wear and tear"的那部分费用.因为地毯是旧的. 即便完全是楼主的责任, 房东也只能charge一个小的百分比.

看看这个连接吧: http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit.shtml

Example

Suppose that you have a month-to-month tenancy, and that you properly give your landlord 30 days' advance written notice that you will end the tenancy. A few days after the landlord receives your notice, the landlord gives you written notice that you may request an initial inspection and be present during the inspection. A few days after that, the landlord telephones you, and you both agree that the landlord will perform the initial inspection at noon on the fourteenth day before the end of the tenancy. Forty-eight hours before the date and time that you have agreed upon, the landlord gives you a written notice confirming the date and time of the inspection.

The landlord performs the initial inspection at the agreed time and date, and you are present during the inspection. Suppose that you have already moved some of your possessions, but that your sofa remains against the living room wall. When the landlord completes the inspection, the landlord gives you an itemized statement that lists the following items, and also gives you a copy of the required sections of the security deposit statute. The itemized statement lists the following:

* Repair cigarette burns on window sill.
* Repair worn carpet in front of couch.
* Repair door jamb chewed by your dog.
* Wash the windows.
* Clean soap scum in bathtub.

Suppose but don't do any of the repairs or wash the windows. After you move out, the landlord performs the final inspection. Twenty-one days after the tenancy ends, the landlord sends you an itemized statement of deductions, along with a refund of the rest of your security deposit. Suppose that the itemized statement lists deductions from your security deposit for the costs of repairing the window sill, the carpet and the door jamb, and for washing the windows. Has the landlord acted properly?

Whether the landlord has acted properly depends on other facts. Suppose that the cigarette burns were caused by a previous tenant and that the carpet in the room with the couch was 10 years old. According to the security deposit statute, the cigarette burns are defective conditions from another tenancy, and the worn carpet is normal wear and tear, even if some of it occurred while you were a tenant. The statute does not allow the landlord to deduct from your security deposit to make these repairs.215 However, the landlord can deduct a reasonable amount to repair the door jamb chewed by your dog. This is because this damage occurred during your tenancy and is more than normal wear and tear.216

Suppose that the windows were dirty when you moved in, and that they were just as dirty when you moved out. According to the security deposit statute, the windows are in "the same state of cleanliness" as at the beginning of your tenancy. The statute does not allow the landlord to deduct from your security deposit to do this cleaning.217

Now suppose that while you were moving out, you broke the glass in the dining room light fixture and found damage to the wall behind the sofa that you caused when you moved in. Neither defect was listed in the landlord's itemized statement. Suppose that your landlord nonetheless makes deductions from your security deposit to repair these defects. Has the landlord acted properly in this instance?

The landlord has acted properly, as long as the amounts deducted are reasonably necessary for the repairs made. 218 Both of these defects are more than normal wear and tear, and the landlord is allowed to make deductions for defects that occur after the initial inspection, as well as for defects that could not be discovered because of the presence of the tenant's belongings.219