May 30, 2023 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 440/2022
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 LEASING TRIBUNAL OF THE DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
BETWEEN
MURAK
Claimant
and
MORAN
Defendant
| Hearing : | 24 May 2023 |
|---|---|
| Judgment : | 30 May 2023 |
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON this claim having been called for a hearing before me on 24 May 2023 with the Claimant in attendance and the Defendant absent although served notice of the date of the hearing
AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant’s claim shall be dismissed.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 30 May 2023
At: 9am
THE REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Murak (the “Claimant”), the tenant of Unit No. 000, , DIFC, Dubai, the UAE (the “Unit”).
2. The Defendant is Moran (the “Defendant”), the owner of the Unit.
Background and the Preceding History
3. The underlying dispute is with regards to the renewal of the tenancy contract dated 15 December 2021 (the “Contract”). As per the Contract, the period of tenancy was set out to be for one year from 15 December 2021 to 14 December 2022. The Contract provided that the rent for the Unit would be for 1 year in the amount of AED 90,000.
4. On 8 December 2022, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking a court order for the renewal of the Contract.
5. On 25 April 2023, the Defendant filed an acknowledgement of service with the intention to defend all of the claim.
6. On 1 May 2023, a consultation was held before SCT Judge Hayley Norton at which the parties failed to reach an amicable solution.
7. In line with the processes and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination pursuant to a hearing scheduled before me on 24 May 2023 (the “Hearing”).
The Claim
8. The Claimant submits that she filed a claim seeking a court order for the renewal of the Contract. The Claimant submits that the Defendant failed to send a notarised eviction notice.
Defence
9. The Defendant submits that on 25 July 2022 she sent to the Claimant a notice for the non-renewal of the Contract via Singapore Post. The Claimant refused to accept the postal delivery, therefore, the Defendant proceeded by issuing the non-renewal notice via WhatsApp as this was the only form of communication between the parties (the “Notice”).
10. The Defendant submits that, to date, the Claimant is still residing within the Unit although the Notice was served, and the Contract has expired.
11. The Defendant set out the following requests within her defence:
(a) The Claimant to immediately vacate the Unit;
(b) The Claimant to pay the Defendant rent from 14 December 2022 (i.e. the expiry date of the Contract) until the date the Claimant vacates the Unit, plus interest as the Court deems fit; and
(c) The Claimant to compensate the Defendant in the amount of AED 54,750 as nominal value of damages and loss of profit due to the Claimant’s failure to vacate the property and therefore inability to entertain prospective clients.
Findings
12. The relationship between the parties is governed by the Contract along with the DIFC Leasing Law No. 1 of 2020 (the “DIFC Leasing Law”) and the DIFC Contract Law No. 6 of 2004 as amended (the “DIFC Contract Law”).
13. Upon reviewing the Contract, I find that the only clause which requires written notice to be provided relates solely to notifications of rental increase. The Contract remains silent and makes no reference to written notice being required for vacation of a Unit. In any event, I find that the Defendant provided the Notice some 3 to 4 months before the expiry of the Contract.
14. In light of the above, I find that the Claimant has no legal basis for her claim and the Defendant has acted within her right as the owner of the Unit.
15. Within her submissions, the Defendant set out a number of requests seeking relief from the Court. As these requests were not filed formally by way of a counterclaim I will not be making a formal determination upon the Defendant’s requests.
16. Each party shall bear their own costs.
