Arab

A person of the nationality of an Arab country exaggerated to show richness, and rented a “Rolzerois” vehicle for a period of 19 days, but he escaped from paying the rental value of the company, and he deserved an amount of 72 thousand dirhams, so he initiated his prosecution, and the Civil Court in Dubai obligated him to pay the amount due to the claimant company .

In detail, a car rental company filed a lawsuit against a man of the nationality of an Arab country, demanding that he be obligated to pay 72 thousand dirhams, in addition to the legal interest 5% from the date of the payment due to complete payment, fees, expenses and law fees.

In her case, she was based on the fact that the defendant rented a vehicle of the type “Rollsois Collinan” for a period of 19 days, with a rent of 3600 dirhams per day, not including value -added tax.

She indicated that he returned the car on the specified day, but he did not pay the value of the rent, which is estimated at about 72 thousand dirhams, including the graphics of crossing the traffic tariff gates, and when he demanded that he abstained without right, which prompted her to register a lawsuit against him, and she filed a document portfolio folded in a copy of The lease contract, and a copy of a contract of road and transportation.

For its part, the court assumed an expert to hear the case, and concluded in his report that the defendant rented and received the car on January 25 and returned it on February 12 of last year, and he monitored the value of the rent due for this period in addition to the traffic fees for the gates, which makes the total required 72 A thousand dirhams, pointing out that the papers were completely empty of any evidence that the defendant paid any payments in favor of the plaintiff.

The court submitted to its judiciary – according to the reasons for the ruling – indicating that it has the authority to collect and understand the reality in the case, appreciate the evidence, judicial evidence, documents, and balance between them, and to take what you reassure from it. She explained that, according to the Civil Transactions Law, the rent is the ownership of the lessor for the tenant, a intentional benefit from the leased thing for a certain period, in exchange for a type of known and amount, if it is from the money.

The fee is entitled to fulfill the benefit or the ability to fulfill it, and it is correct to require expediting the fee, or postponing it into installments that are performed at certain times, pointing out that it chose to use an expert after he identified his profession, and deposited his report, which reassures what he concluded, and considers him part of the reasons for its rule.

She explained that the report ended in the preoccupation of the defendant’s concern with an amount of 72 thousand dirhams in exchange for renting the vehicle subject of the lawsuit, and then obliges him to pay the amount to the plaintiff, in addition to a legal benefit 5% from the date of the claim and until the full payment.

A similar case, the civil court ruled to compensate 40,000 dirhams to a rental company, which was paid by a person who rented a car from it without committing to pay the fees.

The company explained that the defendant refrained from paying the amount due to him despite his friendly demand, and provided a bond for her a copy of the lease contract, appending to sign it, and it was established by renting the vehicle, and a copy of the disclosure of violations.

It was not possible to reach a settlement between the two parties by the Dispute Resolution Committee in the Dubai Courts, and then the lawsuit was underway, and the defendant did not attend despite his announcement, so the ruling was the urbanization against him, pursuant to Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Law.

On the issue of the lawsuit, the court clarified in the reasons for its ruling that according to the Civil Transactions Law, the tenant must return the leased thing when the lease period has passed to the lessor in the case in which it is received except for what has afflicted the thing from destruction or damage for a reason that has no hand in it, so if he kept it under his hand Without the right, he was obligated to pay the lessor for the proverb with the guarantee of damage.