The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Natale v Noraiz [2024] DIFC SCT 278 (21 August 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_2787.html
|
|
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
The Dubai International Financial Centre |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Natale v Noraiz [2024] DIFC SCT 278 (21 August 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_2787.html |
||
[New search] [Help]
Natale v Noraiz [2024] DIFC SCT 278
August 21, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 278/2024
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
BETWEEN
NATALE
Claimant
and
NORAIZ
Defendant
Hearing : 14 August 2024 Judgment : 21 August 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 (the “Claim” and the “Hearing”)
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 3,500.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the DIFC Courts’ filing fee in the sum of AED 367.25.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 21 August 2024
At: 11amTHE REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Natale (the “Claimant”), an individual who signed a lease agreement with the Defendant for a, DIFC, Dubai, UAE (the “Unit”).
2. The Defendant is Noraiz (the “Defendant”), the new owner of the Unit.
Background and the Preceding History
3. The underlying dispute arises over a lease agreement dated 10 May 2023 with a tenancy period from 10 May 2023 to 9 May 2024 (the “Agreement”).
4. On 10 July 2024, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) claiming the sum of AED 5,367.25 for the security deposit and the Court fees.
5. On 17 July 2024, the Defendant filed an acknowledgement of service defending the claim.
6. A Consultation was held before SCT Judge Hayley Norton on 29 July 2024, 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 14 August 2024 (the “Hearing”).
The Claim
8. The Claimant submits that on 1 March 2024, she sent an email to the property agent to confirm that she will not renew the Agreement. On 3 April 2024, the Defendant was informed, and he asked the Claimant to clear all the bills. On 4 April 2024, the Claimant requested an NOC to clear the apartment.
9. The Claimant adds that upon vacating the keys of the Unit were handed to the property agent. On 5 June 2024, the Claimant requested the security deposit. The Claimant adds that no response was received until around 6 June 2024, in which the Defendant responded“Hi Natale , you left the apt without giving the proper handover and security deposit has been utilized toward the renovation of the apt that include cleaning, pest control and painting. FYI apartment already sold”.
10. The Defendant submits that the parties, in addition to the agreement, signed an addendum and terms and conditions of the security amount which states the following:“Landlord may deduct applicable charges from the security deposit for any damages to the property upon return back of the property and all reasonable costs associated to repair the property like painting and cleaning, unpaid rent amount, unpaid utilities charges, replacing unreturned keys, building access card/ remote controls, security devices, or any other components of the property caused by smoking, including but not limited to stains, burns, odors and removal of debris.”
11. The Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to handover the unit properly, therefore, the security deposit was deducted to cover the cost of painting, AC services, provision of pest control, deep cleaning, electrical and plumbing fixtures, replacement of shut offs and tile polishing. The cost amounted to AED 3,990 including VAT.
Findings
12. The relationship between the parties is governed by the Agreement along with the DIFC Leasing Law No. 1 of 2020 (“DIFC Leasing Law”).
13. The Agreement provides that the deduction shall be limited to painting and cleaning, as described in the security deposit section of the Agreement which provides “Landlord may deduct applicable charges from the security deposit for any damages to the property upon return back of the property and all reasonable costs associated to repair the property like painting and cleaning, unpaid rent amount, unpaid utilities charges, replacing unreturned keys, building access card/ remote controls, security devices, or any other components of the property caused by smoking, including but not limited to stains, burns, odors and removal of debris.”
14. Since there is no proper handover made by the parties, the Defendant is entitled to deduct what is described in the Agreement. The quotation provided by the Defendant exceeds what is described in the Agreement.
15. The Claimant provided a quotation of painting and pest control in the sum of AED 900. However, failed to provide any quotation for deep cleaning.
16. The Claimant at the hearing agreed to pay the sum of AED 1,500 for painting, cleaning and pest control, in which, the courts find reasonable and within the Agreement.
17. Therefore, I find that the Defendant shall return to the Claimant the total sum of AED 3,500 plus the DIFC Courts’ filing fees.