Fumnaya v Fulton [2015] DIFC SCT 079 (22 June 2015)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

The Dubai International Financial Centre


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Fumnaya v Fulton [2015] DIFC SCT 079 (22 June 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2015/sct_079.html
Cite as: [2015] DIFC SCT 079

[New search] [Help]


Fumnaya v Fulton [2015] DIFC SCT 079

June 22, 2015 Judgments,SCT - Judgments and Orders

Claim No: SCT 079/2015

 

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

Court

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

Ruler
of Dubai 

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

Tribunal
OF DIFC COURTS
DIFC Courts

BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

 

Between 

 

FUMNAYA 

Claimant

Claimant
 

v 

FULTON

  Defendant

Defendant

Hearing: 08 June 2015

Judgment: 22 June 2015


 JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI


UPONhearing the Claimant and the Defendant

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

Court
file

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Claimant’s Claim is dismissed.

The reasons:

1. The Claimant requested to be paid all outstanding amounts at the end of his tenancy contract with the Defendant (who had rented an apartment from him in the DIFC

DIFC
). The Defendant had refused to pay the Claimant, which had led the Claimant to file this case before the Court.

2. No settlement was reached by the parties at the end of the consultation and, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication. On 6 June 2015 I heard both parties’ submissions.

3. In the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim, the Claimant argued that the original tenancy contract expired on 12 November 2014, but the Defendant did not vacate the Unit and extended his stay for 18 more days. The Claimant further argued that the Defendant did not handover the Unit by 30 November 2014 as agreed and the Defendant caused damage to the unit by leaving rotten food in the fridge and vacated the unit without cleaning it at the end of December 2014.

4. In its defence, the Defendant admitted only that the Claimant was entitled to an extra 18 days, but argued that the 18 days could be deducted from the Security Deposit in the sum of AED 13,200, and stated that the Unit had been vacated on 30 November 2014. The Defendant further argued that the Claimant could use the remaining amount from the Security Deposit to clean up the Unit and to cover any alleged damages.

5. I have examined both parties’ submissions and I have found that the Claimant was paid by the Defendant the sum of AED 13,200 as a Security Deposit, and that both parties agreed to adjust the extra 18 days on the rate of AED 14,000 from the Security Deposit, namely in the sum of AED 6,904.

6. In my view, the Defendant personally had vacated the Claimant’s Unit on time as agreed and the Claimant could at any time after 30 November 2014 use his unit again after moving out any left behind items belonging to the former tenant (the Defendant) after clearing the Unit by using the Security Deposit which had been paid. Therefore, I reject the Claimant Claim for unpaid rent days.

7. In addition to that, I hold that the amount received by the Claimant as the remaining amount from the Security Deposit, the sum of AED 6,296 is a fair and reasonable general compensation for all damages claimed by the Claimant in this claim which was caused by the Defendant as a result of the tenancy contract.

8. Therefore, the Claimant’s Claim is dismissed.

 

Issued by:

Nassir Al Nasser

Judicial Officer

Date: 22 June 2015

At: 9am


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2015/sct_079.html