Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1161926
maltatoday 15 | SUNDAY • 1 SEPTEMBER 2019 CULTURE ENVIRONMENT LAW & PLANNING IF the owner of a leased property used the correct procedure to termi- nate a lease, then that termination is enforceable. This was held in a decision deliv- ered by the Rent Regulation Board presided by Magistrate Dr Monica Vella in Paul Bugeja -v- William Bugeja on 30 April 2019. In his application, Paul Bugeja ex- plained that he had rented a prop- erty to his son in August 2006 for 18 months. After the 18 months expired the lease was extended. In August 2010 Paul Bugeja filed a judicial letter against William Bugeja informing him that the lease was terminated and he was to vacate the property. He asked the Board to order the de- fendant to vacate the property leased out to him. This was challenged by William Bugeja who pleaded that his father was not the sole owner of the prop- erty and lease was still valid accord- ing to law. The Board analysed the evidence produced, namely the plaintiff's af- fidavit, saying that his son was not paying the rent and following an argument between the two, he paid Lm3,500 for the unpaid rent. However, the situation persisted and Paul Bugeja, then filed the judi- cial letter asking his son to leave. The defendant had a different ver- sion of events in that the property was not only used by him, but also by his brother. He agreed that he had paid Lm3,500, but he had done work for his father valued at Lm24,000, which was not paid. His father offered to set this sum off with the rent. He later received the judicial letter. The Board pointed out that the plaintiff had sent two judicial letters to the defendant, the last one indi- cating that there was no intention to extend the lease. According to the judgement de- livered to the First Hall of the Civil Courts of 22 January 2016 in Pauline Falcone -v – Dr Alessandro Lia et held that according to Article 1532 of the Civil Code, the owner has the right to terminate the lease once the lease contract expires. If the lease continues, it may be ter- minated if the owner gives notice to the tenant and therefore the lease is terminated, irrespective if the tenant remains in the premises. In another judgement of the Court of Appeal of 26 September 2018 in Godfrey Gialanze -v- Kummissarju ta' l-Artijiet, the owner by sending a judicial letter would be terminating the lease and the tenant would have no title over the property. The Board held that once the plain- tiff following the proper procedure then, it has to following his inten- tions to terminate the lease. The Board then moved to uphold the plaintiff's claim and ordered the defendant to vacate the property within two months. Once correct procedure for termination of lease is used, then termination is enforceable LAW mmifsud@mifsudadvocates.com.mt ASK MALCOLM Dr Malcolm Mifsud is a partner at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates robert@robertmusumeci.com ASK ROBERT Dr Robert Musumeci is an advocate and a perit having an interest in development planning law PLANNING AT issue was an application to sanc- tion a series of structural renova- tions which took place outside the development zone of Naxxar. In his application, the architect indicated that his client's property was built prior to 1940 and used as a dwelling ever since. The architect further held that works included the unauthorised demolition and reconstruction of dilapidated rooms, the construction of an agricultural room as well as the construction of a swimming pool in- stead of two overlying rooms which were demolished. Following a thorough assessment, the Planning Commission turned down applicant's request on various grounds. The Commission observed that a 'large warehouse / garage complex' featured 'in the middle of the site'. This building occupied an area of circa 190sq.m and was allegedly built without a permit. It was further noted that 'various vernacular features and original walls' were lost due to the demoli- tion works that were carried out. The dwelling in question was found to occupy a floorspace of 430sq.m, that being equivalent to an addi- tional 90sq.m other than what was deemed to be legally established. In this context, the scale of the re- sultant development was deemed massive, resulting in a deleterious impact on the surrounding rural set- ting. Mention of the fact that the build- ing elevations were finely finished instead of employing recycled stone was also made. The proposal was thus considered to run counter to Policy 6.2A of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance (2014) as well as Thematic Objective 8 and Rural Objective 4 of the Stra- tegic Plan for the Environment and Development which seek 'to protect and re-use buildings of vernacular interest'. In reaction, applicant lodged an appeal, insisting that the Authority should have granted his application. In his arguments, applicant (now, appellant) held that the two rooms close to the pool area were clearly visible in the aerial photos taken in 1994. It was clarified that these rooms were used as stores for agri- cultural purposes. Insofar as the demolition works having allegedly resulted in the loss of important aesthetic features, ap- plicant countered that the 'pre-1978 structures which could have had ver- nacular features were either demol- ished, collapsed or replaced' by the former owners. Still, applicant contended that 'the vernacular features were not only retained but also cleaned and pre- served.' As to the extent of the current dwelling floorspace, applicant insist- ed that this was more or less equiva- lent to the total floor area which ex- isted prior to 1978. In reply, the Authority reiterated its objections. The Tribunal was spe- cifically reminded that appellant was not even a registered farmer whereas the land in question was not suitable for crop production. But even so, appellant was oddly contending that the illegal stores were being used for agricultural pur- poses. Furthermore, the Authority reit- erated that a number of vernacular features were lost as a result of the demolition works that took place, which allegation was echoed by the Superintendent of Cultural Her- itage. In its assessment, the Tribunal im- mediately observed that the current dwelling footprint was more or less equivalent to that which had existed prior to 1978. This implied that the current build- ing envelope was not substantially different from what had previously existed. It was further highlighted that the present structures were less scattered than those in situ prior to 1978. The Tribunal went on to conclude that the proposal was deemed ac- ceptable, provided, however, that the two garages close to the pool area were used as agricultural stores. Additionally, the permit was issued subject to the removal of a conspicu- ous solitary structure which was built close to the site entrance and another situated right in the middle of applicant's field. Sanctioning of dwelling permitted, subject to downscaling