Ference v (1) Fenella (2) Feray [2015] DIFC SCT 044 (28 May 2015)

Claim No: SCT 044/2015



In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler

of Dubai











(2)  FERAY


Hearing:17 May 2015

Judgment:28 May 2015


UPONlisting a hearing before H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi on 4 May 2015 which the Claimant attended and the Defendants’ representative failed to attend

AND UPONlisting a further Small Claims Tribunal

hearing on 17 May 2015 which the Claimant and the Defendants’ representative attended

AND UPONreading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded in the Court



1. The Defendant

shall pay the Claimant the amount of  AED 4,500

2. Each party shall bear their own costs.


3. The Claimant is Ferenc

4. The Defendants areFenella and Feray


5. The Claimant signed a Tenancy Contract with the Defendants on 27 January 2013 to rent the apartment 2803 in xxxx, Dubai.

6. As per the terms of the lease agreement the Claimant paid the amount AED 90,000 in addition to AED 4,500 as security deposit for apartment 2803, as per the receipt voucher that was dated 20 January 2012 submitted by the Claimant as evidence. The receipt voucher also clearly stated that the security deposit for apartment 2803 in xxx would be refundable by the owner at the end of the one year contract.

7. At the end of the 1 year contract they extended the Tenancy Contract until January 2015, after which the apartment was returned to the possession of the Defendants, the Claimant contacted the representative of the Defendants’ by several methods being email, phone, and text messages requesting that they refund the deposit amount. The representative of the Defendants delayed the refund of the deposit which led to the Claimant assigning a lawyer on 24 March 2015 to send a Legal Notice requesting the refund, but there was no action taken in that matter.

8. On 6 April 2015 the Claimant filed a case against the Defendants claiming the security deposit in the amount of AED 4500, and damages. The Defendants’ representative replied by email without filing an acknowledgement of service.

9. On 17 May 2015, an SCT hearing was held before me, the Claimant and the Defendants’ representative attended.

10. The Defendants stated that in respect to the payment of the security deposit, they are willing to pay half of the deposit resulting in the amount of AED 2500. They have also stated that as per the tenancy contract the security deposit deposited was AED 4500 out of which 50% will be refunded back to the tenant and the remaining 50% will be deducted for the services done that includes painting, deep cleaning, and AC servicing, in addition to the 5 extra days the Claimant stayed in the apartment. Furthermore, during the period of the tenancy contract, the sliding door of the bedroom was damaged, and it was fixed for the amount of AED 6200 that is not being charged to the tenant.

11. There were no invoices presented by the Defendants for the charges of the painting, deep cleaning, and AC servicing which were claimed.

12. In regards to the sliding door, the Claimant provided an email from the Defendants’ agent, xxxx, dated 6 May 2015, stating that the door was broken before the Claimant occupied the apartment, which I accepted as evidence.


13. Article 10 of the DIFC

Contract Law No. 6 of 2014, reads as follows:

 “A contract validly entered into is binding upon the parties. It can only be modified or terminated in accordance with its terms or by agreement or as otherwise provided in this Law.

14.  Clause 16 to 18 of the Claimant’s Tenancy contract state that:

“16. On submission of the final settled DEWA, DU, ETISALAT bill, the Tenant shall hand over possession of the apartment in a good state of repair and in clean and habitable condition to the land lord. Failure to comply with the above conditions will result in deduction from the Tenant’s refundable security deposit to cover any costs incurred.

17. Upon end/termination of the contract it is the Tenant’s responsibility to remove all of their belongings from the apartment. Should the tenant not have removed all belongings upon end / termination of the contract the landlord has the right to remove them and offset the cost of removal of the Tenants belongings against the security deposit.

18. Upon end/termination of the contract the Landlord will return the security deposit to the Tenant less any incurred deductions as specified in 16 & 17 above.”

15. The Claimant provided the Tenancy Contract and the receipt of the security deposit to prove payment of AED 4500.

16. In my judgment I am satisfied that the Claimant has fulfilled his obligations under the Tenancy Contract and the Defendants must pay the outstanding amount (deposit) to the Claimant according to Article 18 of the Tenancy Contract

17. However, the Defendants have failed to provide any invoices for the charges of the painting, deep cleaning, and AC servicing, which were claimed.

18. With regard to the Claimant’s request for compensation for damages due to the Defendants delaying to refund the deposit, the burden of proof is upon the Claimant to prove that he has incurred such damage as a result of the delay.  No evidence was submitted to the Court to prove such damage.


Issued by:

Maha AlMehairi

Judicial Officer

Date of Issue:  28 May 2015

At: 2pm