Claim No: SCT 079/2015
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 H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
Hearing: 08 June 2015
Judgment: 22 June 2015
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE 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:
The Claimant’s Claim is dismissed.
1. The Claimant requested to be paid all outstanding amounts at the end of his tenancy contract with the Defendant (who had rented an apartment from him in the DIFC). The Defendant had refused to pay the Claimant, which had led the Claimant to file this case before the Court.
2. No settlement was reached by the parties at the end of the consultation and, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication. On 6 June 2015 I heard both parties’ submissions.
3. In the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim, the Claimant argued that the original tenancy contract expired on 12 November 2014, but the Defendant did not vacate the Unit and extended his stay for 18 more days. The Claimant further argued that the Defendant did not handover the Unit by 30 November 2014 as agreed and the Defendant caused damage to the unit by leaving rotten food in the fridge and vacated the unit without cleaning it at the end of December 2014.
4. In its defence, the Defendant admitted only that the Claimant was entitled to an extra 18 days, but argued that the 18 days could be deducted from the Security Deposit in the sum of AED 13,200, and stated that the Unit had been vacated on 30 November 2014. The Defendant further argued that the Claimant could use the remaining amount from the Security Deposit to clean up the Unit and to cover any alleged damages.
5. I have examined both parties’ submissions and I have found that the Claimant was paid by the Defendant the sum of AED 13,200 as a Security Deposit, and that both parties agreed to adjust the extra 18 days on the rate of AED 14,000 from the Security Deposit, namely in the sum of AED 6,904.
6. In my view, the Defendant personally had vacated the Claimant’s Unit on time as agreed and the Claimant could at any time after 30 November 2014 use his unit again after moving out any left behind items belonging to the former tenant (the Defendant) after clearing the Unit by using the Security Deposit which had been paid. Therefore, I reject the Claimant Claim for unpaid rent days.
7. In addition to that, I hold that the amount received by the Claimant as the remaining amount from the Security Deposit, the sum of AED 6,296 is a fair and reasonable general compensation for all damages claimed by the Claimant in this claim which was caused by the Defendant as a result of the tenancy contract.
8. Therefore, the Claimant’s Claim is dismissed.
Nassir Al Nasser
Date: 22 June 2015
The Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.
Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.
The content of the DIFC Courts website is provided for information purposes only and should be disregarded when making decisions on inheritance and any other matters. Whilst every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, the DIFC Courts makes no warranties or representations to you as to the accuracy, authenticity or completeness of the content on this website, which is subject to change at any time without notice. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice by the DIFC Courts or any person employed or connected with it or formerly so employed or connected, to any person on any matter, be it in relation to inheritance, succession planning or otherwise. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer in relation to your personal circumstances and your objectives. The DIFC Courts does not assume any liability and shall not be liable to you for any damages, including but not limited to, direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, losses or expenses arising in connection with this website, its administration and any content or lack thereof found on it. The information on this web site is not to be displayed except in full screen format. Although care has been taken to provide links to suitable material from this site, no guarantee can be given about the suitability, completeness or accuracy of any of the material that this site may be linked to or other material on the internet. The DIFC Courts cannot accept any responsibility for the content of material that may be encountered therein.