25 Apr Organized Commercial Evacuation
ADP has came up with a way that enables lanlords of commercial properties to evacuate tenats without the need to go to the court. ADP created a preventive idea to retrive leased property from unresponsive lessee by drafting a leasing contract that contains conditions or a pledge/authorization to the lessor to vacate the leased unit in certain cases. The leasing contract prepared by ADP will guarntee to the landlord the permissability to open the leased unit by force and remove tenant’s belonings in an organized and recorded way. The process to invlolvs representatives from a number of stakholders (the lessor + representative of the security company + mall manager, and any other stakholders). Also the landlord will be able to keep vacated tenant’s belongings in a certain place and a certain period of time so that the tenant can take them, or dispose it if the tenant does not show up in designated time. All this is done after the lessor has been issued warning letters before and after each stage of the eviction.
A. In Sharia Law Rules:
1.The general rule of Sharia that all actions are permissible unless another rule prevents it.
2. Tenant’s approval of the eviction requirement in the leasing contract is a mandate/waiver of his right to hand over the leased unit in certain events.
3. Tenant’s occuption of the unit without adhering the leasing agreement would be considered as trespassing in Sharia Law.
1. It may be considered as contract containig a coercive clause, especially in current tenant condition who may sign the new contract in fear of being harassed or his ongoing contract to be terminated.
A solution: Not to implement ADP’s drafted contract on current tenants.
2. The need for prove that tenant was not adhering to the leasing contract, which means that there would be a dispute on whether the leassee has meet his obligations or not.
A solution: the evacuation should be carried out by a committee of several parties that they to be witnesses of the process.
B. Saudi Laws Rules:
1. We have not found what prevents the use of the ADP’s method in Saudi laws except some judicial rulings, which are mostly in the eviction of residentual properties.
2. The procedure for keeping tenants’ belongings for a period of time and the customer’s non-attendance to take them and sell these belongings is approved method in many economic activities such as: laundry and shipping companies. However, the tenant has to be informeed of the designated time for them to remove their belongign the consequencesof not doing that.
3. The prior approval or authorization from the tenant is an important document that can be argued before the courts, especially since the eviction process is organized and has a Inventory record signed by multiple parties (witnesses). In addition, the burden of proof will be upon the tenant to prove that there is damage or irregularity by the lessor when evicting the unit.
1. The eviction of the property without court order might be considered as infringement on the authorites.
Comment: This may be overridden by the fact that the tenant authorized the landlord to execute the eviction and remove their belongings in a manner agreed in advance.
2. Courts are there to resolve any disputes regarding contract implemnations, claims of damage, or infringement of property. Why resolving disput in unorthodix ways.
Comment: No law prevents parties to resolve their disputes outside court, and the lessor got a prior approval (authorization) weakens the tenants legal position, especially if the process of eviction is organized and monitired by a several parties.
C. Expert opinion:
A number of experts (judge and former judge) reported that the process, if arranged with the prior approval of the tenant on the condition of eviction by the lessor, and the process was carried out after an alert was issued to him and the property (the goods) was removed in a smooth manner and informed the tenant about it and gave him a period of time to come to take it may be sufficient and proper procedure. However, the lessor may be blamed for the damage to the goods transported if it occurs.
Some lawyers stated that the disposal of the leased eye by opening and unloading was an attack on property and that this should only be done by judicial order. There are similar precedents that taking the customer’s consent does not affect the evidence of the liability for the disposal of the leased eye, such as: leasing ending with ownership where there are judicial rulings punishing the company tug of the car and punishing the direct employee. Comment: The judicial rulings have grounds that led to the conviction of the company (leased), such as what occurred in one of the cases that the citizen paid the late premium and did not return the car to him and this in my opinion and other arguments in the case led to the company’s infractions. In addition to the ministry of interior issued a special order for these companies not to withdraw cars, but the companies were required to take up such a decision by signing a pledge and authorizing the company to withdraw the car. So the problem arises in the way the withdrawal and evacuation process is applied, and God knows.
That (organized eviction) is required to organize the evacuation and removal process, so that the tenant is warned of the date of the opening of the shop by force, and this is in the presence of several supervisory bodies (security company + market management + representatives of the lessor, for example) as witnesses to this safety of the process and the status of the goods removed and sign a joint record to open the leased eye and remove what is in it and then keep it in the stores in a way that preserves it for a period of time with the notice of the tenant the time given to him to take the goods and then the goods can be discharged by sale and disposal. An additional clause can be placed in the contract stating that a daily fee will be charged on the goods that are removed and stored in the market and the value is met from the sale of the stored goods.
However, the administration recommends applying the idea on a narrow level as an experiment to the reaction of the judiciary and the official authorities before it is widely applied. The problem occurs in two ways:
1. Case law is not in conformity with the content of the proposed idea (organized eviction).
2. The internal circulars of the controls are not published and unclear.
Therefore, we see that it is well organized and explains the method of removal for the tenant and his signature on the required documents (contract +authorization).
Adding the cost of water/electricity/air conditioning from the rental slot so that the amount is not included and a clause is placed in the contract that the non-payment of the tenant will expose him to the interruption of resources for non-payment to the claimants.