Dubai court orders son’s eviction from father’s home despite family ties

Dubai: A Dubai Civil Court has ordered a son to vacate and surrender possession of his father’s residential property in Dubai within a period not exceeding two months, ruling that his continued residence in the home constitutes unlawful occupation despite owning another property.

The court also ordered the defendant to bear all court fees and expenses, affirming that remaining in a property without the owner’s consent cannot be justified by family ties alone.

Background and Dispute Details

The case arose after the father filed a lawsuit seeking eviction, explaining that he intended to allocate the house to another son who was preparing for marriage until the latter completes construction of his own residence.

Get updated faster and for FREE: Download the Gulf News app now - simply click here.

Court records showed that the defendant had been living in the house for several years as part of the family home, but the father argued that the son also owns a separate residence in Al Khawaneej and had received support for its maintenance, demonstrating his ability to relocate. Despite this, the son refused to vacate the property, prompting legal action.

Arguments and Evidence Presented

In his defence, the son’s lawyer requested dismissal of the case, arguing that there was no valid legal proof establishing the father’s ownership of the property and highlighting the defendant’s long-standing residence as part of the family household. The defence maintained that the eviction request lacked legitimate grounds and was aimed at enabling another sibling to move in.

During the proceedings, the father submitted official documents, including a property ownership certificate issued in his name since 2005, along with proof of the other son’s marriage. The court noted that the defendant failed to provide any evidence establishing a legal right to remain in the property or proof of any registered real estate interest.

Court’s Reasoning and Final Verdict

In its reasoning, the court held that the dispute stemmed from the defendant’s possession of property owned by the claimant without consent, classifying the situation as unlawful occupation. It emphasised that ownership grants the holder full authority to use, benefit from and dispose of property, and that any occupation without permission must be terminated.

The court further confirmed that the official ownership certificate constitutes conclusive proof of title and cannot be challenged except on grounds of forgery, which was not established in this case. It also rejected the argument that the ownership applied only to the land and not the house built on it, clarifying that anything permanently attached to land forms part of the property.

Claims that the defendant contributed to the construction of the house were dismissed due to lack of evidence, with the court noting that such contributions do not create ownership rights unless formally registered in the real estate records.

The court concluded that the defendant’s continued residence in the property, despite the owner’s objection, amounted to possession without legal basis. It therefore ordered his eviction and confirmed that he must vacate the premises within the specified period, while bearing all legal costs and expenses.