MAISON JENNY LTD. ν. TOULLA PERICLEOUS. (V22) 1 CLR 122

(2). After the determination of a contractual tenancy a landlord is entitled, under the provisions of section 7

(2)of the Rent Control Law, 1954, to increase the rent of business premises (to which that Law applied) by an amount not exceeding two hundred and seventy-five per centum in the case of premises held under a contractual tenancy on the date on which that Law came into operation. Appeal dismissed. Appeal. The appellant appealed against ·the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Theocharides Ag. P D.C.), dated 22nd December, 1956, (Action No.·2040/56). Stelios Pavlides, Q.C., and E. Tavernaris for the appellant. Sir Panayiotis Cacoyannis for the respondent. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court which was delivered by: ZEKIA J. :The point which falls for decision by this Court is whether a landlord is entitled to increase the rent of his business premises by 275 per centum when such premises were held under a contractual tenancy at the time the Rent (Control) Law, 1954, which by section 7

(2)authorised the said scale of increase, came into operation. The premises in question consist of an upper floor at Apollo Street, Nicosia. They were first let by a contract of lease on the 1st of January, 1950, for a period of three years by respondent-landlord to a certain George Hirsh, as a dwelling house as well as for the business of Maison Jenny for a Monthly rent of £30. The same premises were subsequently leased to the appellant firm for a further period of three years beginning from the 1st January, 1953, and ending on the 31st December, 1955, at a monthly rent·of £35 as business premises. After the expiration of the contract of lease the contract was not extended and the appellant continued to occupy the premises as a statutory tenant since the 1st of January, 1956.The landlord served upon the said tenant a notice of his intention to increase the rent to the maximum permitted as per section 8

(2)of the Rent (Control) Law 1954, and Claimed £112.500 mils monthly rent as from the 6th February, 1956, onwards. Appellant tenant disputes the claim on the main ground, as we indicate at the outset, that section 7

(2)of the Rent (Control) Law, 1954, which empowers a landlord to increase the rent to an amount not exceeding 275 per centum in case of business premises, does not apply to premises held under a contract which was subsisting at the date the Law came into operation. Section 7 reads:- "7.-

(1)A landlord may increase the rent of premises, to which this Law applies, only as follows:-

(2)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section

(1)contained, in the case of premises, to which this Law applies, situated within a rent restriction area deemed to have been declared as such under the proviso to sub-section

(1)of section 3, a landlord may, as from the date of the coming into operation of this Law, and in addition to any increase provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section

(1)but in lieu of the increase provided in paragraph (c) thereof, increase the rent by any amount agreed upon between himself and the tenant, or failing such agreement, by an amount not exceeding one hundred per centum in the case of dwelling-houses and two hundred and seventy-five per centum in the case of business premises". Section 7

(2)should be read in conjunction with section 4

(1)of the same Law which reads:- "4.-

(1)Save as hereinafter in this Law provided, it shall be unlawful for any landlord to increase or attempt to increase or to receive or recover a rent in respect of any tenancy of premises, to which this Law applies, in excess of the rent fixed by an order of the Board, or if no order has been made in excess of the standard rent". "Standard rent" is defined in section 2 of the said Law; the, relevant part of the section is: "Provided that, in respect of a rent restriction area deemed to have been declared as such under the proviso to sub-section

(1)of section 3, "standard rent" shall mean the rent of the premises as at the first day of March, 1941, or in the case of premises which were then unlet, unoccupied or unbuilt, the rent at which the premises were first let after the first day of March, 1941, and, if not so let, the·rent which, in the absence of agreement, may be fixed, by the Board". It is admitted that the premises in question are within a rent restriction area deemed to have been declared as such under the proviso to sub-section

(1)to section

1. It is, also admitted that the premises in question were first let at £30 per month on the·1st January,
2. From the mere reading of the relevant sections of the Law it is obvious that the landlord in this case is entitled to claim the maximum amount of increase provided by section 7

(2). There is nothing in·the said sub-section to limit its operation to the subsisting statutory tenancies when this Law had come into operation in

1. Indeed it strikes one as an enormous increase in the rent of premises which rent was regulated by contract only 4 years before the Law had been enacted and such contract expired about 18 months after the Law came into force. But this is an inescapable conclusion of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Rent (Control) Law,
2. In the definition of "standard rent" the Law accepted as standard rent in case where premises were let after March, 1941, the rent at which the premises were first let and that being so and the scale of increase prescribed being the same in all cases regardless of the date the premises were first let, abnormal increases in the rent of premises let in post-war years for the first time were bound to occur. It is difficult to argue that this was not in the contemplation of the legislature bearing in mind that premises built after 1946 were decontrolled and freedom to raise rent by agreement was recognized to the parties. Section 8

(1)of the Law reads:- "8.

(1)Nothing in this Law shall be taken to authorize any increase of rent except in respect of a period during which, but for the provisions of this Law, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession". This section also limits the operation of section 7

(2)of the Law empowering increase of rent to cases where the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession of the premises but for the provisions of the Rent (Control) Law; in other words, it contemplates contractual tenancy subsisting at or after the coming into operation of the Law in which case the landlord is not entitled to any increase of rent for the duration of such tenancy. We do not think on the other hand that there is sufficient ground for taking the words "increase of rent" in section 8

(1)or section 4

(1)to refer only to increases provided in sections 7

(1)(a) and (b). In short, unless this Court can adopt an "equitable construction" of the relevant sections of the Rent (Control) Law, 1954, which in modern legislation-and particularly in a Law like the present one, in which elaborate and detailed provisions have been made to consolidate the Law controlling the rents and matters incidental to it-we cannot do, we·are bound to adhere to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the sections under review. We think, therefore, that this appeal should be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο