Privacy Settings

Claim No. SCT 090/2022

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. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

BETWEEN

LEXIE

Claimant

and

(1) LOTTIE
(2) LETTIE

Defendants

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

UPON the Claim Form being filed on 10 March 2022

AND UPON a Hearing having been held before H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 18 May 2022, with the Claimant and the First Defendant’s representative in attendance, the Second Defendant absent although served notice of the Claim

AND UPON considering all documents and evidence submitted on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Second Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 36,153.

2. The Claimant’s claim against the First Defendant shall be dismissed.

3. The Second Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fees in the sum of AED 1,808.87.

Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Registrar
Date of issue: 27 May 2022
At: 9am

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Lexie (the “Claimant”), an individual leasing the unit 001Building (the “Premises”).

2. The First Defendant is Lottie (the “First Defendant”), the Landlord of the premises (the “Premises”).

3. The Second Defendant is Lettie, a holiday home company located in Dubai (the “Second Defendant”).

Background and the Preceding History

4. The Claimant and the Second Defendant entered into an agreement to lease the Premises for 13 months (the “Second Lease Agreement”), starting from 10 November 2021 to 10 December 2022.

5. The Premises is owned by the First Defendant who entered into a lease with the Second Defendant (the “First Lease Agreement”) and allowed it to sub lease the Premises to third parties during the period of the First Lease Agreement.

6. On 10 March 2022, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”), seeking an order that the Defendants refund the money for the remaining period of the Second Lease Agreement being 9 months and the security deposit in the sum of AED 36,153.

7. The matter was called for a Consultation before SCT Judge Maitha Al Shehhi on 19 and 29 April 2022. Although the Claimant and the First Defendant were in attendance, they failed to reach a settlement. The Second Defendant was absent although served with notice of the Claim.

8. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Hearing held on 18 May 2022, with the Claimant and the First Defendant in attendance. The Second Defendant was absent although served with notice of the Claim.

The Claim

9. The Claimant’s case is that she entered into the Second Lease Agreement with the Second Defendant for a period of 13 months, from 10 November 2021 to 10 December 2022.

10. The Claimant submits that if the Premises were to be vacated, she seeks a refund from the Defendants for the remaining period of the Second Lease Agreement being 9 months and the security deposit in the sum of AED 36,153.

The Defence

11. The First Defendant submits that it is the owner of the Premises and that it had entered into a tenancy contract (the aforementioned “First Lease Agreement”) with the Second Defendant on 3 November 2020 for a period of 12 months starting from 8 November 2020 to 7 November 2021 for annual rent of AED 60,000 paid in 4 installments plus a conditional free rent period from 8 November 2021 to 7 December 2021 on the condition that the Second Defendant would not be in breach of the First Lease Agreement.

12. The First Defendant adds that the First Lease Agreement, including the rent-free period expired on 7 December 2021, however, the Second Defendant illegally remained occupying the Premises. Therefore, the First Defendant filed a claim against the Second Defendant in the DIFC Courts under claim No. SCT-034-2022 seeking a court order to evict the premises and recover the outstanding amount. Subsequently, on 8 March 2022, the SCT issued the order to evict the Second Defendant and handover the Premises to the First Defendant.

13. The First Defendant submits that there is no contractual relationship between it and the Claimant. In addition, the First Defendant submits that the First Lease Agreement expired on 7 December 2021. Therefore, the Second Defendant or any of its contracting parties – including the Claimant – is occupying the Premises illegally after 7 December 2021.

14. The First Defendant also submits that the Second Defendant had no capacity to enter into a lease agreement with any third party in relation to the unit owned by the First Defendant after 7 December 2021.

15. Therefore, the First Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the Claimant’s claim and any remedy sought against the First Defendant.

Discussion

16. Firstly, as the Second Defendant failed to appear at the Hearing, I note RDC 53.61 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts stipulates that “if a defendant does not attend the hearing and the claimant does attend the hearing, the SCT may decide the claim on basis of the evidence of the Claimant only”.

17. Pursuant to the First Defendant’s defence mentioned above, I find that there is no contractual relationship between the Claimant and the First Defendant. Therefore, I dismiss the Claimant’s claim against the First Defendant.

18. In relation to the Second Defendant, it has illegally leased the premises to the Claimant as the First Lease Agreement with the First Defendant has expired. The First Lease Agreement provided that the Second Defendant can only sublease the Premises to third parties for the period of that Agreement.

19. Therefore, I find that the Second Defendant shall be responsible to refund the Claimant the sum of AED 36,153.

Conclusion

20. The Second Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 36,153.

21. The Claimant’s claim against the First Defendant shall be dismissed.

22. The Second Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fees in the sum of AED 1,808.87.