The businessman settled his obligations towards that transaction at the Courts' Treasury.
A lawyer has stood trial for forging tenancy contract of his previously-owned villa, the Court of First Instance was told.
The 55-year-old Emirati lawyer allegedly approached a Tasheel centre on March 20, 2014, with an old tenancy contract, which had been signed by him and another man, against whom the case was closed due to his demise.
Prosecutors accused the lawyer of having that certificate issued, using some documents including the old contract even though he was aware that he was no longer the owner of the property at the time he renewed the tenancy contract. He is being charged with forging an official electronic document.
The complainant, a 54-year-old Emirati businessman said: "I purchased a residential villa located in Al Badaa on November 11, 2013, in an auction announced by the Dubai Courts. The price for which I got it was Dh4.6 million."
The businessman settled his obligations towards that transaction at the Courts' Treasury.
"I was then aware that the villa had already been given for rent by the previous owner (the accused) and that the tenancy contract was to end on May 12, 2014," the complainant told the prosecutor referring to notifications he received from the courts.
He notified the tenant, an Emirati, that he should vacate the villa but he was surprised to learn that the latter's tenancy contract had been renewed by the accused and that the new contract would expire in 2019.
"I learnt that the new contract was signed on January 1, 2014, that is after I landed the auction bid. The accused is presumed to have been aware that I became the new proprietor. He should have known that given the fact that the villa was being seized by the court at that time".
He added that the registration certificate was issued on March 20, 2014, that is, after he made the purchase at the auction.
"It was issued after I sent a vacation notice to the tenant. So the latter was also aware that I was the new owner."
The businessman also said that the Land Department verified the matter and concluded that the certificate was not legal.
No comments:
Post a Comment