Skip to Content

Dalmatia v Daiki [2013] DIFC SCT 034

Dalmatia v Daiki [2013] DIFC SCT 034

August 11, 2013

image_pdfimage_print

Claim No.

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS

BEFORE SCT JUDGE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

BETWEEN

DALMATIA

Claimant

and

DAIKI

Defendant

Hearing: 6 August 2013

Judgment: 11 August 2013


JUDGMENT OF SCT JUDGE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI


UPON hearing the Claimant and the Defendant

AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 7,500.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the court fees in relation to this claim.

 

The Reasons:

Parties

1. The Claimant is Dalmatia
2. The Defendant is Daiki

Background and the preceding history

1. The Claimant alleged that she had rented her two bedroom apartment in Daiki to the Defendant for one year, but that he was refusing to pay her the deposit amount of AED 7,500.00, the DEWA bills for the initial months in the amount of AED 155.00 and the cost of DIFC registration in the amount of AED 360.00, as had been agreed in the Tenancy Contract.
2. No settlement was reached by the parties at the end of the consultation and, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication. On 6 August 2013 I heard the Claimant’s representative’s submissions only as the Defendant did not attend the hearing.

Particulars and Defence

3. In her Particulars of Claim, the Claimant argued that it was stated in the Tenancy Contract that the tenant had to pay a security deposit to the landlord. The Claimant further argued that the tenant was required to pay the cost of registering the Tenancy Contract with the DIFC Authority and to pay the DEWA bills on time.
4. In his defence, the Defendant argued that there was no clear express term or obligation in the Tenancy Contract to pay any sum above the rental amount. The Defendant further argued that the security deposit was to cover any damage or loss caused by the tenant which had not occurred yet.
5. In addition to his defence, the Defendant added to his original submissions allegations and counterclaims, but failed to submit any written evidence in support, neither did he attend the final hearing to assert his counterclaims orally.

Finding

6. I have reviewed the “Tenancy Contract”, which reads at the paragraph titled Observation as follows:
“Security Deposit of Seven Thousand Five Hundred dirhams (AED 7,500) will be refundable upon compilation of contract if dues are paid, no damage on the property and should be mutually agreed by both parties addendum is part of the contract.”
7. I am of the view that the word “refundable”, as cited above, means that the agreed amount should be refunded by the landlord to the tenant at the end of the tenancy period, which means that the tenant had agreed to pay that amount in the first place to the landlord to cover any damage or loss that might be found at the end of the Tenancy Contract which is by implied terms of custom what is the general practice in the DIFC and the Dubai Real Estate business. Therefore the Defendant was obliged to pay the security amount to the Claimant before he entered the unit, namely the sum of AED 7,500.00 in addition to the Court fees in relation to this claim.
8. Furthermore, I have not found in the Tenancy Contract any indication that the tenant is required to produce any DEWA bills during the tenancy period. In fact the addendum to the Tenancy Contract states at item (11) that at the time of vacating the apartment, the tenant shall produce such documents.
9. I should add that I do not accept all of the Defendant’s allegations and counterclaims made in his original defence submissions, as he has failed to submit any supporting evidence.
10. Finally, I find that the evidence submitted by the Claimant regarding the alleged unit registration fee is neither sufficient nor reasonable to establish that the Defendant is contractually or legally liable to pay any extra amount beyond that which has been decided in this Order at paragraph 7 above. Therefore this part of the Claimant’s claim is rejected.

Issued by:
Maha AlMehairi
Judicial Officer
Date of Issue: 11 August 2013
At: 10am

X

Privacy Policy

The Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.

Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.

  1. DRA's Top Management is committed to secure information of all our interested parties.
  2. Information security controls the policies, processes, and measures that are implemented by DRA in order to mitigate risks to an acceptable level, and to maximize opportunities in order to achieve its information security objectives.
  3. DRA and all its affiliates shall adopt a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk treatment.
  4. DRA is committed to provide information security awareness among team members and evaluate the competency of all its employees.
  5. DRA and all its affiliates shall protect personal information held by them in all its form.
  6. DRA and all its affiliates shall comply with all regulatory, legal and contractual requirements.
  7. DRA and all its affiliates shall provide a comprehensive Business Continuity Plan encompassing the locations within the scope of the ISMS.
  8. Information shall be made available to authorised persons as and when required.
  9. DRA’s Top Management is committed towards continual improvement in information security in all our processes through regular review of our information security management system.