Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/911593
54 maltatoday SUNDAY 3 DECEMBER 2017 T he First Hall of the Civil Court referred a case to the Rent Regulation Board after it decided that it was not competent to hear cases concerning rent issues even if the lease was terminated. This was a judgement delivered on 30 November 2017 by Madame Justice Lorraine Schembri Orland in Joseph Sammut -v- Liliana Jalil. Joseph Sammut had filed an application before the First Hall of the Civil Courts claiming that the defendant was occupying his property without a title, since she failed to pay the rent and the water and electricity bills. He further explained that Jalil is refusing to vacate the premises notwithstanding that the lease agreement expired and asked the court to order that she vacate the premises. Jalil was in default, since she failed to present a statement of defence. The Court held that it had to first decide whether it was competent to hear and decide on the case, since it dealt with the breach of a lease agreement. The Court heard the testimony of the plaintiff, Joseph Sammut, who confirmed what was mentioned in his application. On the issue of the competence of the court, Madame Justice Schembri Orland said that there is sufficient case-law that determines this issue. In 2009 the competences of the Rent Regulation Board were widened. Article 1525(1) of the Civil Code outlines that the competence of the Board "shall have exclusive competence to decide on all matters relating to contracts of lease of urban property and of a residence and of commercial tenements. Other leases fall under the competence of the courts of civil jurisdiction while matters relating to agricultural leases shall fall under the competence of the Rural Leases Control Board appointed according to the provisions of the Agricultural Leases (Reletting) Act." Article 16(4) of the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance reads: "(4) Without prejudice to any other law the Board shall also decide all matters affecting the leases of urban property including residential as well as commercial property in terms of Title IX of Part II of Book Second of the Civil Code, Of Contracts of Letting and Hiring, including causes relating to the occupation of urban property where such leases have expired." These two articles of law were subject to a string of judgements such as Salvatore Bartolo et -v- Anthony Deguara et, decided by the Court of Appeal on 16 December 2015, held that the two articles of law are on equal footing and therefore, one does not depend on the other. The Board is not decided on issues "affecting the leases of urban property", meaning that it is irrelevant whether the lease is running or terminated. According to Article 1525 the Board is to decide on all issues connected to the lease agreements. In another judgment Catherine Darmanin et -v- Miriam Cutajar Fiorini et the Court of Appeal o 16 December 2015 held that the Board is competent to decide on any dispute derived from a lease. It makes not difference if the lease is running or terminated. In this particular case, the lease agreement had expired and therefore, was terminated. The plaintiff also alleged that the rent was not paid. Therefore, this case dealt with whether there was a breach of a lease contract and the fact that the lease agreement was terminated does not change the competency of the court. The Court then ruled that it does not have the competency to hear the case and transferred it to the Rent Regulation Board Malcolm Mifsud is partner, Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Opinion T he Planning Authority had received a planning application entitled "sanctioning of rural room with rest room/shower and proposed cesspit." The said development is located in Bidnija. Following a thorough assessment, the Commission held that the proposal 'could not be considered further' as the rooms were illegally converted to a residence. The Commission also concluded that the proposal was in breach of Criteria 3 and 6 of Policy 2.5A of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance 2014 as the rooms were not located on officially 'registered ' land. In addition, the Commission found that the proposed cesspit ran counter to Rural Objective 3 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development since 'the structure was not considered as an ancillary use to an agricultural use'. Reference was also made to Criterion 7 of the Rural Objective 1 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development which seeks to control the 'cumulative effect' of rural development. Against this background, applicant's request was rejected. In response, applicant filed an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. In defence of his application, applicant (now, appellant) pointed out that planning permission had been issued to construct walls along the site periphery. Moreover, it was contended that an old room had previously existed in the same location. Consequently, applicant felt that the proposal was tantamount to 'redevelopment' in line with current policies allowing for reconstructions that were in existence prior to 1978. As regards the 'illegal use', appellant disagreed that the structure served as a residence, insisting that his intentions were to use the rooms for agriculture related activity. But even so, appellant made reference to a couple of dwelling applications which had been granted planning permission. The Planning Authority reacted by stating that applicant had previously made an attempt to sanction the illegal development. The case officer also referred to the 1978 aerial photos, pointing out that, at the time, there were no rooms present on site as suggested by applicant. The case officer went on to state that 'the only structure seen on the 1978 aerial image is a reservoir' whereas the present room was detected only after 1998. Concluding, the case officer explained that no permits had been issued 'similar to the case under appeal ' as the quoted precedents were given the green light under a different policy regime. In its assessment, the Tribunal assessed that the illegal structure occupies an area of 90 square metres, built at some pint in time between 1994 and 1998. The Tribunal agreed with the Authority in that a reservoir had existed on site prior to 1978. Consequently, there were no rooms in existence during the said period as alleged by appellant. This meant that appellant was not eligible to redevelop a room that had not existed in the first place. Against this background, applicant's case was dismissed. Dr Robert Musumeci is an advocate and a perit Robert Musumeci Malcolm Mifsud Rent Regulation Board, not the courts, is competent to hear all cases concerning rent Not eligible to redevelop a room that had not existed The Tribunal agreed with the Authority in that a reservoir existed on site prior to 1978 – hence, 'redevelopment policy' is not applicable