Court grants two months for eviction, upholding ownership rights over residency claims.
A Dubai Civil Court has ordered a son to vacate and hand over possession of his father’s residential property in Dubai within two months, ruling that his continued stay amounts to unlawful occupation despite existing family ties and his ownership of another property.
The court also directed the defendant to pay all court fees and expenses, affirming that residing in a property without the owner’s consent cannot be justified solely on the basis of family relationship.
Background and dispute details
The case was filed by the father, who sought eviction of his son, stating that he intended to allocate the house to another son who is preparing for marriage, until he completes construction of his own residence.
Court records showed that the defendant had been living in the property for several years as part of the family home. However, the father argued that the son also owns a separate residence in Al Khawaneej and had received financial support for its maintenance, indicating his ability to relocate. Despite this, the son declined to vacate the property, leading to legal proceedings.
Arguments and evidence presented
In his defence, the son’s lawyer sought dismissal of the case, arguing that there was no valid legal proof confirming the father’s ownership of the property. The defence also pointed to the defendant’s long-standing residence within the family home, maintaining that the eviction claim lacked legitimate grounds and was intended to allow another sibling to move in.
During the proceedings, the father submitted official documents, including a property ownership certificate issued in his name since 2005, as well as proof of the other son’s marriage. The court observed that the defendant failed to provide any evidence of a legal right to remain in the property or any registered real estate interest.
Court’s reasoning and final verdict
In its ruling, the court held that the dispute arose from the defendant’s occupation of property owned by the claimant without consent, classifying it as unlawful possession. It reiterated that ownership confers full rights to use, benefit from, and dispose of property, and that any occupation without the owner’s permission must cease.
The court further stated that the official ownership certificate serves as conclusive proof of title and can only be contested on grounds of forgery, which were not established in this case. It also dismissed the argument that ownership applied solely to the land and not the structure, clarifying that anything permanently attached to land forms part of the property.
Claims that the defendant contributed to construction costs were also rejected due to lack of supporting evidence, with the court noting that such contributions do not create ownership rights unless properly registered in official real estate records.
The court concluded that the defendant’s continued residence in the property, despite the owner’s objection, constituted unlawful possession. It therefore ordered his eviction, requiring him to vacate the premises within the specified period and to bear all legal costs and expenses.
