It was proven not to be damaged during the "national sterilization" period.

He rejected the lawsuit to cancel the "supermarket" contract of 1.3 million dirhams

The Dubai Rental Dispute Settlement Center has appointed an expert to evaluate the store's business.

Archives

The Rental Dispute Settlement Center in Dubai resolved a legal dispute between a holding company and a "supermarket", based on a lawsuit filed by the store to demand the cancellation of a lease contract with the company amounting to one million and 300 thousand dirhams, the value of the last year of the contract, and a deposit of 62 thousand dirhams.

According to the details of the lawsuit, the supermarket administration demanded the termination of the lease contract, citing losses it had suffered during the recent period, which proved to be dishonest by looking into the lawsuit, as it was found that the store's business had not stopped throughout the past period, specifically during the national sterilization and movement restriction program. Over the past year.

In its lawsuit, the supermarket management demanded the company to pay a security deposit of 62 thousand dirhams, and to grant permission to obtain a letter clearing the store's responsibility from water and electricity obligations, issued by the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority, in addition to handing over a check of 1.3 million dirhams, the value of the last remaining year of the contract. Which ends next July.

For his part, the representative of the holding company, legal advisor, Ghassan Al-Daya, said during the online hearing that the store continued to operate regularly during the period of closure and movement restrictions imposed by the authorities in light of the onset of the outbreak of the pandemic, and its work was not affected at all like some other sectors that were affected .

During the hearing of the case, the Dubai Rental Dispute Settlement Center assigned an expert to arbitrate and evaluate supermarket business, which concluded that the store is a branch of a chain of stores and was not affected by the decision to close, or restrict movement during the national sterilization program, and accordingly the judicial authority decided to reject the case, Stressing that the pandemic cannot be considered a forced circumstance that led to the loss or damage to the plaintiff in this case.

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