The court dismissed the case for lack of evidence

"Broker" is asking for 8000 dirhams as a commission for renting an apartment

The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance ruled to reject a lawsuit filed by a "broker" in which it demanded that a tenant pay her 8,000 dirhams in commission for renting a housing unit that she offered him, but he completed the contracting procedures with its owner, and refused to give it its commission.

The court clarified, in the merits of its ruling, that the broker is not entitled to a fee for his mediation, unless his mediation results in the conclusion of the contract that he mediated between the buyer and seller.

In the details, an employee in a real estate brokerage office filed a lawsuit, in which she said that it was against a tenant, in which she demanded that he be obligated to pay 8,000 dirhams in commission, where she agreed with the defendant to search for him two residential units, in exchange for a specific commission, and offered him more than one option, and after their inspection He rented a housing unit from them, but he did not transfer the agreed-upon commission to the real estate office in which she works, and completed the procedures with the owner of the property, pointing out that she does not have a brokerage agreement with the defendant, but rather relies on her claim on the conversations between them through the WhatsApp program, The defendant denied the debt.

The court clarified that the legal decision, and pursuant to the first article of the Evidence Law, is that the plaintiff must prove his right with the defendant, and that the principle is the discharge of liability, and that whoever claims contrary to the original must prove this, indicating that the lawsuit papers are devoid of what indicates the existence of a relationship or contract Between the two parties, the papers also failed to present any documents showing that the defendant had rented the apartment, and thus the complainant had filed her lawsuit on sent statements that had no evidence of reality.

The court affirmed that the “job of the broker”, according to Articles (254 and 256) of the Commercial Transactions Law, does not end and he is not entitled to a fee for his mediation, unless his mediation results in the conclusion of the contract that he mediated between the buyer and the seller, since he is required to be entitled to the fee to conclude the deal between The two parties must submit the written evidence or the contract concluded between the two parties to prove its existence, indicating that the assessment of whether the deal was concluded as a result of the broker's effort or not is from the authority of the subject court, and the court decided to reject the case while obliging the complainant to pay judicial fees.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news