When Rent Is Paid to the ‘Wrong’ Person: How Dubai Courts Revisit Decisions, Intermediaries and Tenant Good Faith

Rental disputes are among the most common legal issues faced by residents in Dubai. A recent decision of the Dubai Rental Dispute Settlement Centre highlights an important and often misunderstood question: what happens when a tenant pays rent through an intermediary instead of directly to the landlord, and can a court revisit its decision if key facts are later clarified?

 

The dispute arose between a property owner (landlord) and a tenant over a residential apartment in Dubai. According to the landlord, the tenant was liable to pay a total amount of Dh51,667, which included outstanding rent, a security deposit, administrative expenses, and other related costs.

 

The tenant stated that she had paid the rent in full at the beginning of the tenancy by bank transfer, following payment instructions provided by the parties involved in managing the property. To support her defence, the tenant submitted extensive documentary evidence. This included bank transfer receipts showing payment of Dh45,675, correspondence via email and WhatsApp confirming payment instructions, proof of tenancy registration on Ejari, and documents showing payment of electricity and water deposits.

She also demonstrated that she had vacated the apartment before the expiry of the lease term and had obtained a clearance certificate from the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority confirming that no outstanding dues remained. According to the tenant, she acted in good faith and followed the directions given by parties who appeared to be officially managing the property.

 

The committee initially ruled in favour of the landlord and ordered the tenant to pay the claimed amount along with the court fee and related expenses, at a stage when the expert findings had not yet formed part of the committee’s assessment. Following this decision, the tenant engaged UAE-based legal consultancy Kaden Boriss to represent her in seeking justice. As the timeline to file an appeal had already lapsed, Kaden Boriss assisted the tenant in filing and pursuing a petition for reconsideration.

 

Reconsideration is an exceptional legal mechanism that allows a final judgment to be reviewed in narrowly defined circumstances:

• When the judgment was affected by fraud committed by the opposing party
• When the judgment was based on forged documents or false testimony
• When important documents, previously withheld, are discovered after the judgment
• When the court granted relief that was not claimed or exceeded the claims made
• When the judgment contains internal contradictions
• When the judgment affects a person who was not properly included in the case due to fraud, collusion, or serious negligence
• When the judgment was issued against a person who was not duly represented in the proceedings

 

It is not intended to function as a second appeal, but rather as a safeguard to ensure that justice is not compromised by facts that were unavailable or insufficiently examined at the time of the original decision.

 

Kaden Boriss led the reconsideration proceedings by presenting the expert findings and demonstrating how those findings fundamentally altered the basis of the original decision. In particular, the expert confirmed that the tenant had paid the rental amount and related charges through official documentation and clarified that certain amounts claimed by the landlord were not contractually payable by the tenant. These submissions formed the basis on which the committee agreed to reconsider the case. Following the acceptance of the reconsideration petition, Kaden Boriss continued to actively represent the client through the final determination of the dispute by addressing the landlord’s objections and clarifying the role of the intermediary involved in managing the property.

 

In its final ruling, the committee focused on the findings of the expert report. It became clear that the tenant had never dealt directly with the landlord and that all interactions were conducted through the management company. These entities had prepared the tenancy contract, provided payment instructions, and handled administrative matters. The committee sought clarification from the landlord, who confirmed that the management company had prepared the lease agreement, collected the rent, and provided him with the executed contract, and that he had no direct dealings with the tenant. This confirmation established the presence and role of an intermediary in the leasing process.

 

The committee applied the legal concept of “apparent authority” or “apparent agency”. This principle recognises that where a person or entity appears, through conduct or representation, to have authority to act on behalf of another, and a third party reasonably relies on that appearance, the consequences should not fall on the innocent party acting in good faith. The committee found that the tenant had acted reasonably and honestly by following instructions from parties who were visibly involved in managing the property.

 

The committee also noted that the landlord had not raised any objections regarding rent payments for most of the tenancy period and had only done so shortly before filing the case. This delay further supported the conclusion that the tenant had no reason to believe her method of payment was improper. The fact that the security deposit had been returned to her reinforced the view that the tenancy account had been settled. In light of these findings, the committee cancelled its earlier judgment and dismissed the landlord’s claim in full, holding that the tenant’s payment was legally valid and that no outstanding amounts were due.

 

This case offers important lessons for both tenants and landlords in Dubai. Tenants should always retain proof of payment, ensure their tenancy is registered on Ejari, and deal with licensed brokers or management companies where possible. Landlords, on the other hand, should clearly define who is authorised to collect rent, closely monitor rental payments, and raise objections promptly if any issue arises.