Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1523590
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 7 JULY 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report Re-imagining the Tal-Barrani- Bulebel junction THE reduction in the number of traf- fic light stops along Tal-Barrani Road when the Santa Luċija underpass was opened came as a welcome relief because it allowed traffic to flow smoother. It did not solve all the congestion issues along the road since motorists coming from Żejtun wanting to crossover into Tarxien and Bulebel now had to take a detour towards the Santa Luċija round- about. But when Infrastructure Malta announced its plans to reorganise traffic flow near the Tarxien, Gudja and Bulebel junctions, I thought they would provide a smoother flow and never believed in a hundred years the agency that has been adamant on removing traffic light junc- tions would suddenly go all mad about them. The new plans reintroduce the crossover traffic lights, apart from split- ting traffic coming from Żabbar towards Tal-Barrani into two separate flows at a new junction that would be created at the corner of the Bulebel industrial estate (near the BOV ATM). By splitting up this stream into two, a new set of traffic lights is being introduced at this junction. This makes absolutely no sense to me. The easiest option would have been to redirect the southbound Tal-Barrani traffic flow into Triq San Anard towards Bulebel, into Triq Ħal Tarxien and back out onto Tal-Barrani at Triq il-Ħotba, where the entrance to St James Hospital is situated. This slight detour would allow traffic from Żabbar to join in the same flow near the BOV ATM. Additionally, just after this unidirectional flow along three lanes re-joins Tal-Barrani, a hair- pin junction would allow cars to join the northbound lanes with an option to turn back into Triq San Anard. This would create a detour for southbound cars but it would also ensure that at no point will there be any crossover traffic thus elimi- nating the need for traffic lights on these two junctions. It also allows cars coming from Żejtun along Triq Ħal Tarxien to turn left along Triq il-Ħotba and take the hairpin on Tal-Barrani to re-enter into Bulebel at Triq San Anard if they want to go to Tarxien or Żabbar. Another objection I have is the plan to introduce a crossover into Għaxaq. This junction is dangerous and rather than having a traffic light-controlled crossing, a flyover option should be considered. In this way traffic into Għaxaq will not need to travel all the way to Bir id-Deheb where a more ambitious plan is required to solve the problems created by a nar- rowing road. I hope Infrastructure Malta reconsiders its plans, at least for the Bulebel junction. L. Micallef Marsaskala IN a significant ruling in the names Galdes et vs State Advocate et delivered on 3 July 2024, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its Constitutional Jurisdic- tion, presided over by Judge Lawrence Mintoff, dismissed claims by property owners seeking to challenge the rent arrangements of their property, cit- ing disproportionate interference with their property rights. The property in question was initially granted on a temporary emphyteutical concession by the plaintiffs' ascendants in 1975, and subsequently renewed in 1992. The current tenant however is the daughter of the original emphy- teuta, and she has been occupying the property for around 30 years and was until recently paying an annual rent set at €279.72. This rent had been re- viewed and increased to €2,500 yearly following a ruling by the Rent Regula- tion Board in a separate case between the owners and the tenant. The plaintiffs argued that the fixed rent which they were receiving until re- cently does not reflect the market value over of the property over the years and sought compensation and damages, claiming that the operation of the law constituted a disproportionate interfer- ence with their property rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Eu- ropean Convention on Human Rights. They contended that the forced lease and the legislative framework govern- ing it were unfair and deprived them of the enjoyment of their property. Amongst other vital pleas, the State Advocate countered the plaintiff's claim by stating that two of the plaintiffs were not suited to stand as plaintiffs. The reasoning behind this stemmed from the fact that two plaintiffs concerned resided abroad and were not being rep- resented as required procedurally. The Court noted that a copy of their pass- ports was presented in the acts of the case and showed that these two plain- tiffs resided abroad. More crucially, despite one of the plaintiffs testifying that she had a power of attorney to rep- resent the mentioned claimants, the Court noted that no power of attorney had been presented in the acts of the case. Therefore, the Court ruled that these two claimants were not suited to stand as plaintiffs. However, the most significant point tackled in the case concerned the appli- cability of the old rent laws regime and their applicability in the case at hand. The State Advocate insisted that the applicants must show that the current tenant resides in the property on the strength of a particular article of the Housing Decontrol Ordinance. The State Advocate submitted that after the expiry of the first contract of 1975, where the ascendants of the applicants had granted the property with a title of temporary emphytheus for the peri- od of 17 years to the father of the ten- ant, another contract had been signed with the original emphyteuta in May 1992, where once again the property was given to him under a title of tem- porary emphytheus for another period of 17 years. The State Advocate main- tained that therefore it is precisely this last contract that counts, but accord- ing to sub-article 12(2) of the Housing Decontrol Ordinance, since the latter emphyteutical concession was granted after 21 June 1979, it was only the orig- inal emphyteuta who has the right to continue occupying the premises with a title of rent from the direct owner. Therefore, the respondent State Advo- cate maintained that the Court action cannot succeed because the claimants had no obligation to extend the lease after it expired in the year 2009. The Court accepted this argument and held that the protection provided by the law allowing the emphyteuta of a temporary concession to convert that concession to a lease title, is not appli- cable in the event that the emphyteuta at the end of that emphyteutical grant is not the original emphyteuta. There- fore, the claimants had no obligation to accept that the current tenant, daugh- ter of the original emphyteuta, contin- ues to reside in the premises under a leasehold title after the emphytheutic concession expired. Therefore, the ten- ant today benefits from a tenancy title arising from a bilateral agreement with the applicants, and it was not the law that imposed the relationship of own- er and tenant between the parties. The Court also stated that this present lease came into effect after the amendments made through Act XXXI of 1995, and therefore the owners cannot complain of any restriction on the conditions of the lease imposed by the law as applica- ble before 1 June, 1995. As a result, the Court pronounced it- self by rejecting the claims of the ap- plicant. The mentioned Court case may be subject to an appeal. Landlords' battle over rent control ends in defeat DR GIANLUCA CAPPITTA Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates