[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Nurjah v Nabyt [2024] DIFC SCT 426 (16 January 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_426.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 426

[New search] [Help]

Nurjah v Nabyt [2023] DIFC SCT 426

January 16, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No. SCT 426/2023

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

NURJAH

Claimant

and

NABYT

Defendant

---

Hearing :	8 January 2024
Judgment :	16 January 2024

---

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

---

UPON this claim having been called for a hearing with the Claimant and the Defendant in attendance

AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 11,303.60.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court filing fee in the sum of AED 565.18.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 16 January 2024
At: 9am

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Nurjah (the “Claimant”), the owner of the Unit No. 001 in DIFC, Dubai, UAE (the “Unit”).

2. The Defendant is Nabyt (the “Defendant”), an individual who signed a lease agreement with the previous owner of the Unit.

Background and the Preceding History

3. The underlying dispute arises over a lease agreement dated 6 October 2022 with a tenancy period from 10 October 2022 to 9 October 2023 (the “Agreement”).

4. On 27 October 2023, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) claiming the sum of AED 11,618 following the Defendant’s alleged overstay of the Unit for two days and his failure to return the Unit to the Claimant in its original condition.

5. On 2 November 2023, the Defendant filed his defence to all of the claim.

6. A Consultation was held before SCT Judge Hayley Norton on 21 November and 8 December 2023, however 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 that was scheduled before me on 8 January 2024 (the “Hearing”).

The Claim

8. The Claimant submits that the Defendant left the Unit two days late and in a bad condition.

9. The Claimant submits that he charged the Defendant for (1) an additional two days of overstay; (2) contractor fees to return the Unit to its original condition; and (3) a lost access card in the sum of AED 11,618.

Defence

10. The Defendant submits that the Agreement is executed between himself and Numin and not between the Defendant and the Claimant. Therefore, the Defendant submits that the Claimant should not be allowed to seek any claim against the Defendant without any valid relationship, legal support and evidence.

11. The Defendant takes the position that although the Claimant purchased the Unit there is no contractual nor legal relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

12. The Defendant submits that on the last day of the Agreement, the Defendant requested the Claimant to take the keys and handover the Unit. The Claimant fixed the handover meeting for the following day however he did not show up. Therefore, the Defendant submits that he did not overstay for two days as the overstay was caused by the Claimant and not the Defendant.

13. In relation to the access card, the Defendant submits that he only received one access card and agrees to pay the Claimant for one access card which is in the sum of AED 100.

14. In relation to the Claimant’s quotation of AED 10,290, the Defendant submits that the Claimant should have obtained three quotations and not rely on one quotation only.

15. The Defendant submits that as per the Agreement “the premise, being left in a satisfactory condition, allowing for reasonable wear and tear” and therefore the Claimant is responsible for reasonable wear and tear, not the Defendant. However, the Defendant submits that the Claimant is seeking for the Defendant to pay for all reasonable wear and tear sustained in relation to the Unit.

16. The Defendant adds that the Claimant has not provided a checklist of the Unit’s condition handed over to him by the previous owner therefore the Defendant suggests that the Claimant’s claim is baseless and without any supporting evidence.

17. The Defendant also submits that the damaged paint as suggested by the Claimant is due to a leakage of water in the Unit which the previous landlord was informed about. The Defendant adds that he fixed the leakage several times at his own expense. Therefore, the Defendant submits that he is not obliged to rectify defects caused by the infrastructure of the building.

18. The Defendant submits that the Courts should dismiss the Claimant’s claim and order the Claimant to pay costs in the sum of AED 7,000.

Findings

19. The relationship between the parties is governed by the Agreement along with the DIFC Leasing Law No. 1 of 2020 (“DIFC Leasing Law”).

20. The Agreement provides that the Defendant has a contractual relationship with the previous owner of the Unit, Numin, and not the Claimant. However, as the Claimant purchased the Unit from the previous owner he has now become the new landlord of the Unit.

21. Article 30 of the DIFC Leasing Law provides the following:

“if a Lessor Transfers to another person a Real Property Interest which is the subject of a Residential Lease, the person acquiring the Real Property interest will automatically assume the Lessor’s rights to the Security Deposit upon the date of Registration of the relevant Transfer Instrument in accordance with the Real Property Law.”

22. As the Claimant has purchased the Unit from the previous owner, (who signed the Agreement with the Defendant), I find that the ownership and interest of the Unit automatically transfers to the new owner, i.e. the Claimant.

Overstay of two days

23. The Defendant submits that he did not overstay in the unit. To contrary, he submits that the only reason the handover of the Unit took place two days after the expiry date of the Agreement was due to the Claimant not being available to receive the Unit.

24. The Claimant provided evidence in the form of a WhatsApp conversation with the Defendant showing that on 8 October 2023, the Claimant, requested an update from the Defendant with no response. On 9 October 2023, the Claimant again requested an update from the Defendant. On 10 October 2023, the Claimant again requested for an update to which the Defendant responded that he will move out on Wednesday, 11 October 2023.

25. The Defendant failed to provide evidence that the delay was caused by the Claimant.

26. Therefore, I find that the Defendant has overstayed for two days from 9 October 2023 to 11 October 2023. The Claimant requested the sum of AED 1,014 for the overstay. However, I find that the daily rate for the overstay shall be calculated pursuant to the last rent paid by the Defendant.

27. The Defendant’s annual rent as per the Agreement was set out to be AED 185,000 per annum/365 days = AED 506.84 per day x 2 days = AED 1,013.69.

Access Cards

28. The Claimant claimed two access cards in the sum of AED 314. However, the Defendant submits that he had only received one access card and therefore should only be charged AED 100.

29. The Claimant has not provided evidence as to the number of access cards that were provided to the Defendant nor has the Defendant provided evidence that he only received one access card. In addition, there is no evidence as to the cost of replacing an access card.

30. Therefore, due to the Claimant’s lack of evidence with regards to the cost of replacing an access card, I dismiss the Claimant’s claim for the sum of AED 314.

Maintenance

31. The Claimant claims maintenance fees and provided a quotation along with pictures of the damages in the sum of AED 10,290 (inclusive of VAT).

32. The Defendant on the other hand suggests that the Claimant should have provided more than one quotation for the repairs.

33. The Defendant himself failed to provide any quotations for the repairs to act as a basis of comparison with the Claimant’s quotation. In addition, the Defendant suggests that the repairs should be charged are the responsibility of the Claimant and not the Defendant.

34. Clause 2 of the addendum to the Agreement provides the following:

“Maintenance:

2.1 the Tenant agrees to keep property; including but not limited to any fixtures, fittings, electrical good, in good condition throughout the term of the tenancy contract, allowing for reasonable wear and tear.

2.2 all general maintenance work in the property, resulting from misuse by the tenant, is the responsibility of the tenant.

2.6 the landlord is not responsible for any damage occurred from any accident while using its facilities (electrical, fire or any other cause) during the time of occupancy. If there is discoloration or holes on the walls the Tenant will be responsible for filling the holes and an entire internal wall and ceiling repaint.”

35. Having reviewed the above, I find that it is the responsibility of the Defendant to handover the Unit in a good condition, and in the matter at hand, the Defendant failed to do so.

36. The Defendant has not provided evidence to show that he received the Unit in the same condition that it is being handed over, and it is unreasonable for one to think that the Defendant would have accepted to pay the sum of AED 185,000 per annum for a Unit in a bad condition.

37. In the absence of any quotation provided by the Defendant, I shall consider the quotation provided by the Claimant as sufficient and reasonable.

38. I find that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 10,290 (inclusive of tax) for the maintenance and to return the Unit in good condition.