Claim No. SCT 003/2014
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E JUDGE OMAR AL MUHAIRI
Hearing: 17 April 2014
Judgment: 27 April 2014
JUDGMENT OF H.E JUDGE OMAR AL MUHAIRI
1. The Claimant is Eileen.
2. The Defendant is Ehud.
3. The property in this dispute is a one bedroom apartment.
4. The Claimant filed a Small Claims Tribunal complaint against the Defendant.
5. The Claimant asserts that the Defendant overstayed his rental lease and requests the payment of the rent for the unpaid period from 11 March 2013 until the Defendant vacates the rental unit.
6. On 11 March 2013, the Claimant and Defendant signed a one year tenancy contract for a one bedroom apartment. The contract was to expire on 11 March 2014.
7. On 28 February 2013, the Claimant sent a letter to the tenant indicating that he must vacate the premises on 30 May 2013 with no option to renew the contract because the Claimant intended to use the unit for his “self- use purpose.”
8. On 20 May 2013, an e-mail was sent from the Defendant’s attorney indicating that the notice to vacate the unit sent by the Claimant had been insufficient. He asserted that a landlord must notify the tenant with valid reasons for eviction at least twelve months prior to the determined date of eviction, pursuant to Dubai Law No. 26 of 2007, Article 25. This e-mail was forwarded to the Claimant.
9. On the last day of the Tenancy Contract, 30 May 2013, the unit was not vacated by the Defendant.
10. The Claimant sent an additional letter to the Defendant on 5 August 2013 through his legal representatives, demanding the Defendant’s eviction, claiming that the tenant was illegally occupying the unit without a tenancy contract.
11. The Defendant was given thirty days to vacate the unit before the Claimant would commence legal proceedings before the DIFC Courts.
12. On 13 January 2014, the Claimant filed a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal, now under consideration by this court.
13. On 29 January 2014, the Defendant disputed the claim filed by the Claimant on the grounds of jurisdiction. He contends that the DIFC Courts in general and the Small Claims Tribunal in particular are not competent to hear the dispute in question based on Article 9 of the Tenancy Contract.
“The SCT will hear and determine claims within the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts where the amount of the claim or the value of the subject-matter of the claim does not exceed AED 100,000.”
“If the tenant is absent from the town at the expiry of the Period of Tenancy or leaves the premises without the Landlord’s consent or if he has not paid the balance of the Rent due by him the Landlord has the right to ask the Local Sharia Court to open and hand over to him the Premises after counting and selling the contents and paying the Landlord his dues.”
FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED REASONS IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1 . The Defendant’s application to contest jurisdiction is denied.
2. The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim.
3. All parties to pay their own costs.
Nassir Al Nasser
Date: 18 May 2014
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.