T + T – normal size
The owner of a villa filed a lawsuit against a tenant, before the Abu Dhabi Family Court and for Civil and Administrative Claims, at the end of which he requested that he pay him 501 thousand dirhams as compensation for the damages he caused from the destruction of the villa and the legal interest at 12% from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment and the judgment being enforced. Expedited without guarantee and obligated as well as all fees and expenses.
Explaining his claim, he said that the defendant had destroyed the property rented to him, by dividing the dwelling other than the purpose for which it was allocated and in a manner in violation of the law, and a judgment was issued against him to rescind the contract and vacate the property, while the defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which he argued that the lawsuit was not allowed to be considered because of the previous ruling, and the lack of Hearing the case for limitation.
For its part, the court, in the merits of its ruling, rejected the argument that the case may not be considered due to a previous ruling in it, since the judicial rulings and decisions ending the litigation that have gained the authority of the res judicata are only in a dispute between the litigants themselves without changing their characteristics and related to the same right in terms of location and reason, noting to the request for compensation in the previously adjudicated lawsuit involving the material and moral damages incurred by the defendant as a result of the defendant’s delay in paying the rent, which is different from the subject of compensation in the present lawsuit regarding the damages committed by the defendant in the property after dividing it in a way that violates the law. The court pleaded not to hear the case for limitation due to the fact that the 3-year period has not elapsed from the day the injured party became aware of the occurrence of the damage and who is responsible for it.
On the subject of the case, the court confirmed that every harm to others obliges the doer, even if he is not distinguished, to guarantee the damage, pointing to the evidence from the engineering expertise report that the defendant divided the house into four sections and sub-rented it to four families, with modifications and additions, as it was proven in the attached consultant report that the average The cost of the rehabilitation and maintenance of the house exceeds the amount of 300,000 dirhams, which leads the court to conclude that an error occurred on the part of the defendant, who had caused the described damages to the villa as a result of making alterations and divisions on it.
Accordingly, the court ruled obligating the defendant to pay the complainant a compensation of 300,000 dirhams and obligated him to pay fees and expenses.
Follow UAE news from Al Bayan via Google News
“Reader. Infuriatingly humble travel enthusiast. Extreme food scholar. Writer. Communicator.”