Dubai court orders son to vacate father’s house amid family dispute

Dubai Civil Court ruled to evict a son from his father's house, after it was proved that he was residing there without legal basis despite owning another residence.

The court affirmed that being the owner’s son does not grant him the right to occupy it without the owner's consent, and remaining in it without consent necessitates eviction.

In detail, a man filed a lawsuit demanding that his son be compelled to vacate a house he owned, as he wanted to allocate it to his other son who was about to get married, until the latter built his own residence.

The plaintiff indicated that the defendant son had been residing in the house for years, despite owning another residence under maintenance, which proves his ability to move into it, but he refused to vacate without justification.

According to the case file, the defendant's lawyer requested the dismissal of the lawsuit, claiming there was no legal document proving the father's ownership of the property, and asserting his client's stable residence there as a family home where he had lived for many years. The lawyer argued that the eviction request was not based on a legitimate reason, but rather aimed to enable the other son to reside there.

During the consideration of the lawsuit, the plaintiff presented documents including a property ownership certificate issued in his name since 2005, in addition to proof of the other son's marriage. The defendant, however, did not provide any evidence proving his legal right to remain in the property or his acquisition of any real right in it.

The court affirmed that the dispute arose because the defendant had taken possession of the property owned by the plaintiff without his consent. It emphasised that the right of ownership grants the owner full authority to use and dispose of it and that the presence of others in the property without the owner's permission necessitates eviction.

It was also established to the court, based on the official ownership certificate, that the plaintiff was the legal owner of the property, and that this certificate is conclusive evidence that can only be challenged by forgery, which did not occur.

It also acknowledged the defendant's proved residence in the house despite the owner's objection and rejected the defendant's pleas regarding his claim of the plaintiff's ownership of the land without the house built on it, affirming that everything connected to the land is considered part of it.

The court also rejected the defendant’s claim regarding contributing to the construction of the house due to lack of evidence, and that this claim does not grant him the right to own it, unless it was officially registered.

Therefore, the court ordered the defendant to evacuate the house and obligated him to pay fees and expenses.