“Al-Ain Appeal” upheld a ruling rejecting the case

A company manager accused of seizing an apartment for 43 months

The “Court of First Instance” rejected the case because there was no evidence that the defendant had occupied the apartment.

archival

Al Ain Court of Appeal upheld a ruling of the Court of First Instance rejecting a real estate company’s claim that required a tenant to pay it 280,000 dirhams of rent for an apartment for 43 months.

In detail, a company filed a real estate lawsuit against a company manager, requesting that he oblige him to pay it 280,000 dirhams, and the delayed legal interest at 12% on the amount judged from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment, and in reserve, a technical expertise was delegated to show the fare of the proverb from the date of the usurpation until the date Forced eviction, proving all the damages, damages, and divisions inflicted by the defendant on the eye that is the subject of the lawsuit and its cost, with obligating the defendant to pay fees and expenses and in exchange for attorneys' fees.

The plaintiff company indicated that it works in the field of real estate management and manages the apartment in dispute, and since taking over its management, it became clear to it that the defendant (the respondent) has been laying hands on it since May 2018 without legal basis, and a judgment was issued to expel him and hand over the apartment free of concerns and people, After receiving the apartment, it became clear to her that the defendant had caused damages to the apartment, the cost of repairing it was estimated at 7900 dirhams, and she had also paid the water and electricity bills for a total amount of 21 thousand and 217 dirhams, in addition to the consideration for his use of the eye from the date of the usurpation for a period of three years and seven months in a total amount of 250 thousand and 833 dirhams, while the defendant failed to attend the sessions despite being announced in publication.

The report of the expert delegated by the court showed that the two parties do not have a direct contractual relationship, but there is a power of attorney given to the plaintiff by the owner of the commercial license.

The court of first instance dismissed the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses, and based its ruling on what was proven to it from the expert’s report that there was no evidence that the defendant occupied the object of the lawsuit, and it was not established by experience that the defendant was the one who caused the damage to the eye In addition to the expert’s statement that there is no data for the defendant with the Electricity and Water Distribution Company, and no account has been opened for him with the company, and that the property was registered in the name of a real estate company during this period. Urgent matters, because judgments issued in temporary matters do not have the validity of the res judicata between the same litigants, as it is just a temporary measure that does not affect the origin of the right and cannot be relied upon to prove that the defendant occupied the subject matter of the case.

As this court did not accept the plaintiff, she appealed and reprimanded the appealed ruling for the unfairness of her rights, and the violation of the established documents, and a memorandum was submitted explaining the reasons for her appeal, in which it was stated that the expert had established in his report that the respondent was the beneficiary of the apartment in dispute by virtue of his signature on the bounced checks. The appellant company with the appellee in order to urge him to conclude a documented lease contract with the municipality for the period subject of the usurpation, but he refused and refused and contented himself with submitting a letter, pledge and guarantee letter from the institution for which he works as director and representative and authorized to sign for it.

For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified that the justifications provided by the Court of First Instance and made it a pillar of its ruling are consistent with the correct law and adopted by this court in whole and in detail.

In the same context, the court adds that the checks signed by the respondent in favor of the appellant do not, in and of themselves, mean that they were in exchange for a rental relationship between the two parties because they did not mention the reason for their issuance, and the appellant is up to her to claim its civil value or file a criminal complaint if necessary, as well as the These checks are incompatible with the alleged rape and are not related to it.

The court indicated that the letter of pledge and guarantee is from a third party, it is issued by a third party, which is the company in which the respondent works as a manager, and not directly from the parties to the dispute, and therefore it is a document that does not entail any right for the appellant to confront the respondent, and the court ruled to accept the appeal in form He rejected the subject matter and confirmed the appealed judgment, and obligated the appellant to pay fees and expenses.

The checks signed by the defendant do not mean that they were against a rental relationship between the two parties.

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