1966 March 11 [ Z E K I A . P., TRIANTAFYLIDES, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.] DEMETRIOS MICHAEL, Appellant-Defendant, v. DEMETRIOS MlCHAUL D. Η Aκ; NlSHANIAN HAIG NISHANIAN. Respondent-Plaintiff. (Civil Appeal No. 4550). Landlord and Tenant--Lease—Contract of Lease—For a term of one year andoption of renewal, by bothparties,for another— Option exercised by both parties—Guarantee clause—Lia bilities following the exercise of right of renewal covered by guarantee clause—Guarantor's liability co-extensive with that of the principal. Contract—Lease —Guarantee clause—See Tenant" above. under " Landlord and Guarantee—Guarantee clause in contract of lease—See " Landlord and Tenant " above. Lease—Contract above. of lease—See under under " Landlord and Tenant " The appellant in this appeal, a guarantor in a contract of lease appealed against the judgment of the District Court whereby he was adjudged to pay the sum of £210 to the plaintiff. His appeal was mainly based on the ground that the Court wrongly construed the guarantee clause. The respondent cross-appealed against the order for costs on the ground that the Court in making the said order for costs has, by an oversight and or erroneously excluded the costs of the proceedings up to the 14th June, 1965. Clause 8 of the contract of lease and the guarantee clause, which are relevant to the determination of the issues invol ved in the appeal run as follows : " 8 . Two months before the termination of the lease each of the contracting parties is entitled to notify the other about the termination of the lease agreement. If not, the obliga tion continues in force for one year under the above terms ". 150 1966 March 11 The Guarantee Clause : "The undersigned Mr. Dcmetrios^ Michael guarantee DEMETRIOS jointly with the lessee the exact performance by him of the MICHAEL above terms of the contract, as well as the regular payment of b. the rent and/or damages in the event of His contravening any H A I G NISHANIAN term The Guarantor (Sgd) The points lor consideration were two, namely {a) The construction of clause
(8)and (b) of the Guarantee Clause. Held. {I) on («) ; Considering the express provision that the period of the lease was for one year, then the construction to be placed on clause 8 could be nothing else than a right of renewal for another year reserved to the parties. So, it appears that, by keeping silence after the expiration of ten months from the date on which the contract was signed, the option for the renewal had been exercised by both parties and the lease was extended for another year. , Held, (//) on (ft)';
(1)This clause is so worded in our view, as to render the guarantor's liability co-extensive with that of the principal. It provides expressly that the guarantor undertakes the exact performance of all the terms included in the contract of lease. The right to renew the lease for another year being embodied in the terms of the contract, the liabilities following the exercise of such right are covered by the guarantee clause.
(2)We have carefully studied the contents of the contract of lease in question in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and we have come to the conclusion that the guarantee signed by the Appellant (guarantor) covered the liability of the principal (tenant) to pay rents and damages until the latter delivered vacant possession of the premises leased by the landlord, the Respondent. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Held, (///) on the cross-appeal: There was a cross-appeal. 11 appears that both parties agreed to a variation of the judgment of the lower court which 151 1966 March II t i l Ml TRIOS variation ιdales to the -inn ol 122 as tosLs ad|itdged. This figure should be increased to JHO. The judgment of the District Court is, therefore, varied ,iccordmgl\ ΜΚΉΛΓΙ Appeal dismissed u ith costs BY consent, ntdynent of the District Court as legards costs ad/udnt'd. ιailed. actordtngh . It ΗΛΗ. NISIIAMXN Appeal. Appeal against the judgment o f the District Court o f N i cosia ( I . m m . D J.) dated ιhe 27th October, 1965 ( A c t i o n N o . 2161/64) whcicby (he defendant was adjudged to pay to the plaintiff the sum o f £210 being arrears o f rent and mesne pio/i/s under a c o n t r a i l ol lease in which defendant was a guarantor Char liKinnidcs, for the appellant. .S' Dcv/i'tian, foi the respondent. The ludgment of the Court was delivered by Ζ ι Μ Λ , I'. . We shall not call upon the respondent shall proceed to deliver the judgment We The appellant in this case was a guaiantor m a contract ol lease which was put in and which is in the file o f the case :: There is express provision in this contract that the duration o f the lease was for a year Clause 8 o f the said contract provides that, unless either paity to the contract informs the other to the contrary two months prior to the expiration o f the lease, the tease shall be deemed to be extended for another year Considering the express provision that the period o f the lease was for one year, then the construction to be placed on clause 8 could be nothing else than a right o f renewal for another year reserved to the parties So, it appears that, by keeping silence after the expiration o f ten months f r o m the date on which the contract was signed, the option for the renewal had been exercised by b o t h parties and the lease was extended f o r another year. Another relevant important clause in this contract is the guarantee clause This clause is so worded in our view, as \'n(t> The material parts of the contract of lease are given at theend of this judgment, /«<·./. at pages 153-154. 152 to render the guaranloi's liability co-extensive with that οι the p i t n u p a l It pmvides cxpicssly that the guaianloi mideitakes ιIn exicl pciloimancc ol all the teims included m the c o n l i . u l ol lease I he right to renew the lease l o i another yeat being embodied in the terms ol t h c c o n l u e t , the liabilities following the exercise o f such tight are covered by the guaianlee clause We have u u e l u l l ) studied the contents of the contiaet ol lease in question in the light of the submission o f the learned counsel foi the appellant and we have come to the conclusion that the guaiantcc signed by the appellant (guarantoi) cu\e icd the liability ol the principal (tenant) to pay rents and damages until the lattei deliveied vacant possession of the piemtscs leased by the l a i u l l o i d , the lespondent I lie ap peal is, t h c i e l o i i , tfisiniwed with tosts Ϊ lit ιc w i s a eioss-appeal It appears that both parties agieed to a sanation ol the ludgmenl o f the lowei coin t which variation iclales to the sum o f C22 as costs adjudged This I'guie -hould be ιnucased to £30 The judgment of the DistiKt C o i i i i is, t h u e f o i e , \aiied aeeoidmgly Josi I'IMDI s, J Any amount paid by the first delead m l (tenant) mwaids the sum of £22 costs against him shall be ciecttlcd a u f p s ' the above aim o f £30 costs undei the iiidg men' ot the D i s l i k t ( ouit appeal (hsiiitwed \ihh coWv fi\ (omenl fitilnmcnt of flit· l)t\li/(f Court as wyaids in\i\ ad/inl^cd \anc<l anonhnyh I he m i k t i a l p..its ol the u m l i a c t o f lease ieteiicd to in the ah o w iiidmntnl aic given below ( O N I R A i I Ol Ownet Mi Ilaig Β Lessee Mi Michalakis I eased pienuses Pa\ment o f tent Nish.iman Colombos Outbuilding situated at No 187Λ, Limassol at N o 16th June Street Duiatiou οΐ Lease Pnte ol lease I I ASL One yeai from 14th July, 196^ £12 (twelve pounds) per month Payable monthly in advance thiough Ottoman Bank or in cash against receipt 153 1966 ar ^_ DIMUKIOS Mi* HAU h Η Alt. NlSMAMAN 1966 March 11 Ot-'METRIOS MICHAEL n. HAIG NISHANIAN If at the expiration of the period of lease the lessee fails to vacate and deliver the said premises to the owner he will be bound to compensate the owner £1,000 mils per day in respect of any number of days that might elapse between the termination and the delivery, as well as to pay all Court fees and advocate's fees necessary for ejecting him from the said premises. Two months before the termination of the lease each of the contracting parties is entitled to notify the other about the termination of the lease agreement. If not, the obligation continues in force for one year under the above terms. The undersigned Mr. Demetrios Michael guarantees jointly with the lessee the exact performance by him of the above terms of the contract; as well as the regular payment of the rent and/or damages in the event of his contravening any term. The guarantor, (Sgd) Demetrios Michael". 154