Claim No: SCT 018/2013
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS
SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
Hearing: 24 September 2013
Judgment: 8 October 2013
JUDGMENT OF JUDGE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
UPON hearing the Claimant and the Defendant
AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The Claim shall be dismissed.
1. The Claimant (Tenant) had singed a Tenancy Contract ("the Contract") with the Defendant (Landlord) to rent Unit No.2504 at Sky Gardens Tower in the
("the Unit"). The tenancy period was for 12 months starting from 1 August 2012 and ending on 31 July 2013. The rent amount was agreed to be AED 69,000.
2. The Landlord had notified the Claimant that the new rent amount would be AED 94,700, should the Tenant wish to renew the Contract.
3. The Claimant refused to renew the Contract on the Defendant's new terms of rent amount and continued possession of the Unit after the rent period had expired. The Claimant alleged that the increase in the rent amount was illegal according to Dubai Law No.26 of 2007, which prevented the Landlord from increasing the rent until the lapse of two years from the start date of the Contract.
4. No settlement was reached by the parties at the end of the consultation, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication.
5. On 24 September 2013 I heard both parties' submissions. The Claimant argued that, should the Defendant not wish to renew the Tenancy Contract on the same terms and conditions as the expired contract, the Defendant was required to notify the Claimant of the same not less than 90 days prior to the expiry date. The Defendant argued that according to the Contract there was no need for the Landlord to send any tenancy expiration notification to the Tenant, as the Contract would expire at the end of the tenancy period.
6. I have reviewed the Tenancy Contract, which provides the following:
"11. This Tenancy Contract shall expire at the end of the Tenancy Period without the need to send any notice/notification by any Party to the other Party, unless renewed upon the mutual agreement of the Parties."
7. It is clear on the face of the above-cited term that the tenancy relationship between the Landlord and the Tenant had expired on 31 July 2013, following which the Defendant had not been required to notify the Claimant of the same.
8. It seems to me that, after 31 July 2013 the Landlord had made an offer to the "former" Tenant with new terms regarding the rent amount, but the "former" Tenant had not accepted that offer. Therefore, the Claimant had no contractual basis for occupying the Unit and should vacate the Unit immediately.
9. In any event, the Claimant has failed to prove to me that Dubai Law No.26 of 2013 would apply in the DIFC. In addition, the DIFC has no Laws or Regulations that prevented the Landlord from increasing the rent amount after the Tenancy Contract had expired.
10. For the reasons set out above, I hold that the Claimant's Claim against the Defendant shall be rejected.
Shamlan Al Sawalehi
Date of Issue: 8 October 2013