October 25, 2023 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 296/2023
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 LEASING TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
BETWEEN
MITHOF
Claimant
and
MAHAAD
Defendant
| Hearing : | 16 October 2023 |
|---|---|
| Judgment : | 25 October 2023 |
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON this claim having been called for a hearing with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative attending the hearing
AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The written notice shall start from the date of this Judgment and for ninety (90) days calculated at the rent price of AED 40,000 at a daily rate of AED 109.58. Following expiry of the ninety (90) day period, the Claimant shall vacate the Unit.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court filing fees in the sum of AED 367.50.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 25 October 2023
At: 12pm
THE REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Mithof (the “Claimant”), an individual who signed a Lease Agreement with the Defendant for Unit No.001, DIFC, Dubai, UAE (the “Unit”).
2. The Defendant is Mahaad (the “Defendant”), the owner of the Unit.
Background and the Preceding History
3. The underlying dispute arises over a Lease Agreement (the “Agreement”). As per the Agreement, the period of the lease was set out to be for one year from 12 August 2022 to 12 August 2023. The Agreement provided that rent for the Unit of 1 year would be in the sum of AED 40,000 to be paid over four (4) cheques.
4. On 11 August 2023, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Leasing Tribunal (the “SCLT”) claiming that the Defendant by way of an email dated 20 July 2023 had sought to increase the rent of the Unit without providing the required 90 days’ notice.
5. On 23 August 2023, the Defendant filed an acknowledgment of service with an intention to defend all of the claim.
6. A Consultation was held before SCT Judge Hayley Norton on 30 August 2023, following which the parties failed to reach an amicable solution.
7. In line with the processes and procedures of the SCLT this matter was referred to me for determination pursuant to a hearing was scheduled before me on 16 October 2023 (the “Hearing”).
The Claim
8. The Claimant submits that on 20 July 2023 the Defendant sent an email to her informing her of a rent increase from AED 40,000 to AED 65,000 (the “July Email”). The Claimant submits that the Email was in response to another email dated 28 May 2023 (the “May Email”) which the Claimant submits that she never received.
9. The Claimant adds that the Defendant failed to notify her of the proposed rent increase 90 days prior to the expiry of the Agreement. The Claimant states that even the May Email is less than 90 days prior to the expiry of the Agreement.
10. Therefore, the Claimant filed a claim with the SCLT seeking a Court order to remain within the Unit as the rent increase notice was not communicated to her pursuant to the DIFC Leasing Law.
11. The Defendant submits that he sent the May Email to notify the Claimant of the rent increase and the Claimant failed to respond. The Defendant therefore proceeded to send the July Email as a follow up. In response, the Claimant rejected the Defendant’s request for the rent increase.
12. The Defendant filed evidence with the Court to show that an email was sent to the May Email and the July Email were both sent to the Claimant in relation to the rent increase.
13. Therefore, the Defendant submits that the Claimant must either accept the rent increase or vacate the Unit.
Findings
14. The relationship between the parties is governed by the Agreement along with the DIFC Leasing Law No. 1 of 2020 (the “DIFC Leasing Law”).
15. Article 31(1) of the DIFC Leasing Law provides the following:
“Rent Increase
(1) A Lessor must give a Lessee written notice of a proposed rent increase at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiry of a residential lease.”
16. The expiry date of the Agreement was 12 August 2023, however, I find that the Defendant failed to provide a written notice of a proposed rent increase in accordance with Article 31(1) of the DIFC Leasing Law.
17. The written notice was provided less than ninety days from the expiry of lease. Article 31(3) of the DIFC Leasing Law provides that “a rent increase in contravention of this Article 31, or in contravention of any provision relating to increase in rent that may be specified under the regulations, is invalid.”
18. The lease has now expired without renewal from both parties. In addition, the parties have failed to agree to negotiate a price that is acceptable by each side.
19. Therefore, I find that as the parties were in dispute of the proposed rental price prior to the expiry Agreement and the written notice provided was served less than the period required by the law, the proposed increase is invalid. The written notice shall have effect from the date of this Judgment and for ninety (90) days calculated at the rent price of AED 40,000 at a daily rate of AED 109.58. After the expiry of the ninety (90) day period, the Claimant shall vacate the Unit.
20. In relation to the Court fees, I find the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 367.50.
