Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/969423
46 maltatoday SUNDAY 15 APRIL 2018 I f a lessee does not adequately maintain a farm that is an integral part of a rented agricultural land then the Agricultural Lease Board will restore possession of the whole lease to the owner. In the case of Trapani Galea Feriol Igino Pro Et Noe Vs Bonnici Vincent Et, the plaintiffs pleaded with the Court to restore possession to them as they claimed that a farm, which was situated in a their leased agricultural plot of land in Burmarrad, had been severely neglected by the defendants who were leasing the property. The Court heard the counterclaim by the defendants who stated that the farm had been severely damaged by a storm and through no fault of their own. They claimed that due to the fact that there were a number of lessees, all of whom utilised different parts of the land, they could not have been expected to carry out the repairs individually. They pleaded with the Court to allow them to benefit from what is referred to as la purgazione della mora, or the benefit of time. This would allow them a while to affect the necessary repairs without prejudicing their right to carry out the lease. The Court explained that since the plea was to terminate an Agricultural lease, the Court would have to assess the contents of Article 4 of the Agricultural Leases (Re- Letting) Act, which is Chapter 199 of the Laws of Malta. It was explained that such situations fell under Article 4(f ), which allows the Court to terminate an agricultural lease in three situations. The lessor must prove that either (1) the lessee did not repair and maintain the walls surrounding the agricultural land, or (2) that they failed to fulfil such obligation or habitually disregarded any other conditions of the lease or (3) deliberately or through negligence caused or allowed to be caused damage, other than damage of small importance, to any fruit trees in the agricultural land. The defendants pleaded that none of these conditions were satisfied and that in fact the land surrounding the farm that was used for cultivation was maintained and in a good state as attested by the technical experts. The presiding Magistrate, Francesco Depasquale, agreed with the defendants that the law especially protected boundary walls and fruit trees, which in this case were kept in good condition. It was, however, observed that an appraisal of the damages to the farm constituted €161,200. It was also explained that the farm was an integral part of the land and so it had to be maintained as a bonus paterfamilias, meaning that a standard of reasonable care is expected. It was also explained that in accordance with Article 1561 of the Civil Code, any damage or deterioration to the property had to be compensated unless it could be proven that the damage did not occur through any fault of his own. The Court therefore ordered that possession be restored to the owners within three months and ordered all costs to be borne by the defendants. Dr Malcolm Mifsud is partner Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Opinion A planning application seeking the sanctioning of a 'residence instead of approved stables' was turned down by the Planning Commission. The building in question is located in an area known as Has-Saptan, outside the development zone of Ghaxaq In its decision, the Planning Commission took note of the following considerations: 1. The proposal resulted in the creation of a new dwelling outside the development zone and was therefore in breach of approved Government policies, plans and programmes for rural areas; 2. The proposal ran counter to the Thematic Objective 1.1 0 and Rural Objective 3 of the Strategic Plan for Environment & Development (SPED) which seek to promote 'rural development which is legitimate or necessary'; 3. The proposed sanctioning ran counter to policies 6.2C and policy 6.3 of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance (2014) since the f loor area was in excess of the maximum allowable f loorspace (namely 200sq.m); 4. The building in question featured an 'elevated basement' extending beyond the footprint of the building; 5. The design was not compatible with the rural character of the surroundings; 6. The garage had no adequate cross-ventilation. As a reaction, applicant lodged an appeal before the environment and planning Review Tribunal, alleging that he was receiving unfair treatment. In his defence, applicant (now, appellant) made the following arguments: 1. The Planning Authority had issued planning permission for a dwelling in Bingemma 'on the sole evidence of an affidavit which stated that a pensioner in Australia distantly remembers that his uncle lived in the farmhouse which was subject to the application; 2. A new ODZ dwelling was granted a permit in Mosta after it was shown that the previous building was served with a water supply; 3. A permit to convert a 43sq.m structure into a dwelling in Bidnija was issued after 'copies of electoral registries showing that the site may have been used for residential purposes' were released; 4. The Authority had sanctioned an extension to a building, previously having a footprint of approximately 35sq.m in Siggiewi even though the site in question was located in a scheduled Area of High Landscape Value and a Special Area of Conservation Moreover, this permit was allegedly issued after applicant submitted an extract from the 1954 electoral register; Applicant pointed out that he had likewise submitted extracts from the 1965 and 1975 electoral registers in order to show that "residents used to live on site prior to 1992." In reply, the case officer underlined that not withstanding applicant's sworn declarations, no buildings were visible on either the 1965 or 1975 aerial photos, adding that he failed to understand " how the residents mentioned in the affidavit used to live in a 'non-existent' farmhouse." Likewise, the Tribunal was unimpressed with applicant's arguments after it held that the only roofed building shown in the relative 1978 aerial photos consisted of a 12sq.m building. Against this background, the Tribunal held against applicant and confirmed the Authority's decision. Robert Musumeci "The Tribunal was not convinced that a dwelling had existed on site" Malcolm Mifsud Lessees may lose their rights to agricultural land if farms and/or any other integral buildings are not maintained Permission for stables turned dwelling is denied EXPOSED AGGREGATE Easy to maintain and naturally skid-resistant, exposed aggregate is an ideal decorative treatment for concrete driveways, patios, terraces and steps. Call on 99953411 Email: lghtnjns@gmail.com • Facebook: xposeitaggregate ✍ Customer satisfaction is essential - Fast, friendly service Cleaning and colour reseal of existing surfaces, available in a choice of colours. CONCRETE CLEAN & SEAL PRINTED / STAMPED CONCRETE Patterned and/or textured to resemble brick, slate, flagstone, stone, tile, wood, and various other patterns and textures. Commonly used for patios, sidewalks, driveways, pool decks, and interior flooring. Rebuild of an existing wall or build you a new one. Dry stone, is a method using stones without any cement to bind them together, traditionally used for the boundaries of fields and gardens. DRY STONE WALLING