Dubai RDSC Clarifies Limits on Eviction for Sale, Rules Against Landlord Who Transferred Property by Gift and Re-Leased It

This article examines a decision of the Dubai Rental Dispute Resolution Centre concerning the misuse of the statutory right to evict a tenant on the ground of an intended sale of property. In disputes arising from eviction on the grounds of sale or personal use, the Centre has consistently emphasised that such eviction must be strictly confined to the purpose expressly permitted by law.

In this case, the landlord served a formal legal notice on the tenant seeking eviction on the ground of an intended sale, in accordance with Article 25(2)(d) of Dubai Law No. 26 of 2007. The provision requires that where a landlord seeks eviction upon expiry of the lease contract, the tenant must be notified of the reasons for eviction at least 12 months prior to the expiry date of the tenancy contract, through the notary public or registered mail. Acting in good faith and in reliance on the notice, the tenant vacated the premises.


However, the facts later revealed that the property was not sold following eviction. Instead, ownership was transferred by way of gift and the property was subsequently re-leased, prompting the tenant to seek compensation for the damages suffered.

In examining the dispute, the Committee focused on the legislative intent underlying Article 25(2)(d), noting that eviction for sale constitutes a narrowly tailored exception to the principle of continuity of the tenancy relationship. The judges observed that this exception exists solely to facilitate an actual sale of the property and cannot be extended to other forms of disposition. The Committee relied on settled principles of the Dubai Court of Cassation and consistent Rental Dispute Resolution Centre jurisprudence, which establish that re-leasing the property or transferring ownership without a sale after eviction defeats the very purpose of the eviction notice and renders the landlord’s conduct unlawful.


Such conduct was held to amount to misuse of the eviction right and an abuse of rights within the meaning of Article 106 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law, which provides that the exercise of a right is unlawful if it is intended to cause harm, to achieve objectives contrary to Sharia, law or morals, or where the benefit sought is disproportionate to the harm caused and exceeds custom and usage, thereby giving rise to liability for damages.

The Committee further analysed the elements of damage and causation, emphasising that the tenant vacated the property in reliance on the eviction notice and thereby altered his legal and financial position. As a direct consequence, the tenant incurred material losses, including higher rent for alternative accommodation, brokerage commission, relocation costs and moving expenses. In addition, the Committee recognised the moral damage suffered by the tenant as a result of the loss of stable housing and the disruption caused by forced relocation. Applying established case-law principles, the judges found a clear causal link between the landlord’s unlawful exercise of the eviction right and the damages sustained by the tenant.

In addressing the quantum of compensation, the Committee held that the amount awarded by the First Instance Committee was consistent with UAE judicial standards governing compensation, which require damages to be proportionate to the harm suffered and supported by the circumstances of the case. The Committee reiterated that compensation for moral damage is permissible where wrongful eviction results in psychological distress, a principle firmly recognised in Dubai rental dispute jurisprudence. Consequently, the appeal was rejected on the merits, and the judgment in favour of the tenant was upheld, confirming the landlord’s liability for compensation and legal expenses.

This decision reinforces a fundamental principle in Dubai’s rental law: the right to evict for sale cannot be weaponised as a mechanism to avoid selling while extracting tenant value. By anchoring its reasoning in the doctrine of unlawful use of rights under Articles 106 and 25(2)(d), the court made clear that landlords who invoke the sale-based eviction exception must demonstrate genuine intent and follow through with the stated transaction. Absent such follow-through, the tenant is entitled to claim compensatory damages encompassing both direct financial losses and non-pecuniary harm arising from involuntary displacement.

The ruling carries significant implications for Dubai’s rental market, signalling that judicial scrutiny will extend beyond the formal validity of eviction notices to assess the substantive intent behind them, thereby strengthening protection for tenant stability against pretextual evictions.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.