Dubai court orders three sons to vacate their father’s villa after they failed to prove he allowed them to stay

Dubai: The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance ruled that three sons must vacate a villa owned by their father, and enable him to take possession of it, and prevented them from interfering with his property, after it was proven to the court that they were occupying the property against his will following his marriage to another woman, according to what the father stated in his lawsuit. He confirmed that they prevented him from entering his house, and forced him to leave it, even though he does not own another residence. In contrast, the sons maintained that they had been living in the villa for about 12 years with their father’s consent, that his wish was for each of the married sons to settle in the house with their families, and that they were involved in the maintenance work. In detail, the father filed his lawsuit demanding that his sons and their families be expelled from the villa he owns, that the property be returned to him, and that he be enabled to possess, use, and benefit from it, explaining that his three sons each had an independent family, and that despite owning their own private residences, they continued to occupy the villa with their wives, children, and servants, without his desire or consent. He pointed out that he had repeatedly asked them to vacate the property and return to their homes, but they did not respond, which deprived him of benefiting from his property and living in it, especially since he does not own another residence, which prompted him to resort to the judiciary to recover the villa. During the proceedings, the sons submitted a memorandum requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed, maintaining that their presence in the house was not without right, but rather based on their father’s desire for them to continue living with him after marriage. They also requested the appointment of an accounting expert to examine the invoices and documents related to the maintenance work that one of the daughters said she had borne the cost of, in addition to what the rest of the sons had spent on maintaining the property. The court decided to appoint an accounting expert to inspect the villa and examine the documents submitted by both parties. The report concluded that the property was built on land owned by the father, and there was no dispute between the two parties regarding his ownership of the villa. The inspection showed that the property was occupied by a number of sons and their family members, in addition to the sons’ mother and two other daughters who were not involved in the lawsuit, and a number of maids. The sons included in the lawsuit did not provide a document proving that their occupation of the property at the time of the inspection was based on permission or approval from their father. In contrast, the report noted a disagreement between the two parties regarding the date of commencement of residence in the villa. The father stated that his sons began occupying it from the date of his marriage to a second wife, while the sons confirmed that they had been living there for about 12 years, and that this was at their father's request. However, the expert did not find conclusive documentation that determines the date of commencement of this residence or how it came about. Regarding maintenance work, the report concluded that one of the daughters spent Dh15,825 on maintenance work done with her father’s knowledge, and it was not proven that she spent other amounts amounting to Dh750,000 as she claimed. The other sons also did not provide documents proving that they bore actual maintenance expenses for the property. After reviewing the case, the court clarified that the expert report proved the father's ownership of the property, and also proved the sons' residence in it and their failure to provide any proof of permission or consent justifying their continued occupation of it, which makes their possession of the property illegitimate, and requires removing this situation and returning the villa to its owner. The court stressed that there is no legal obligation forcing the father to keep his children in the property he owns against his will, and he is free to let whomever he wants live with him, as long as his actions are in accordance with the law, considering that the children’s residence in his property despite his demand for them to vacate it should not deprive him of his right to benefit from his property. The court concluded by obligating the three sons to vacate the villa, enabling their father to take possession of it, and preventing them from interfering with his property, while obligating them to pay the court fees and expenses.