clr/1982/1982_1_199.pdf

(1)(f) of the Rent Control Law, 1975 which reads as follows: "16

(1)No judgment or order for the recovery of possession of any dwelling house or business premises to which this Law applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be given or made except in the following cases:(0 wherethetenant, by takinginlodgers or bysub-lettingo.·otherwise parting with the possession of the whole or any part of the dwelling house or business premises, is making a profit, whether directly or indirectly, which, having regard to the rent paid by the tenant, is unreasonableand theCourt considersitreasonable togivesuchjudgment or make such order*'. 199 Kokkalos v. Pavlidou and Others

(1982)was paying to the respondents and that in the circumstances heconsidered it quite reasonable to make an order of ejectment. Upon appealby thetenant: Held, that this Court has not been satisfied that thejudgment of the trial Court is in any way wrong or that this is a case 5 in which it could interfere; accordingly the appeal must be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Appeal. Appeal by the tenant against the judgment of the District 10 Court of Nicosia (Artemides, S.D.J.) dated the 27th October, 1980 (Appl. No. 328/80) whereby an ejectment order was made against him in relation to premises situated at the corner of Diagoras and Christodoulos Sozos Streets in Nicosia. A. Eftychiou, for the appellant. X. Clerides, for the respondents. 15 L. Loizou J. gave the following judgment of the Court. This is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia whereby an ejectment order was made against him in relation to premises situated at the corner of 20 Diagoras and Christodoulos Sozos streets in Nicosia. The appellant leased the premisesin question from the owners —the respondents in this appeal—by virtue of a contract of lease dated 17th January, 1970, for a period of ten years commencing on the 1st March, 1970 and ending on the 28th 25 February, 1980. The rent was fixed at £180.—per month, payable in advance. This contract of iease is exhibit 1 in these proceedings. It is common ground that the tenant—the appellant—is in occupation as a statutory tenant. The application to the District Court was based on two grounds: (a) that the respondent had contravened a basic term of the tenancy agreement, and (b) that by sub-letting part of the subject-matter property, he was making a profit which, having regard lo the rent paid by him, was unreasonable. The 35 first ground was based on para, (b) of sub-section 1of section 200 30 1 C.L.R. Kokkalosv.ΡβτΙΜοα andOthers L,Lota» J. 16 of the Rent Control Law 36/75 and the second onpara,(f) of sub-section 1 of the same section. We need not concern ourselves with the first ground in the application which, in effect, took most of the time of the trial 5 Court,because this ground was resolved in favour of theappel­ lant. The order for ejectment was made on the second ground. Para, (f) of section 16

(1)of the Rent Control Law reads as follows:10 "16

(1)-No judgment or order for the recovery of possession of any dwelling house or business premises to which this Law applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be given or madeexcept in thefollow­ ing cases:- 15 (f) where the tenant, by taking in lodgers or by sub­ letting or otherwise parting with the possession of the whole or any part of thedwellinghouseor business premises, is making a profit, whether directly or indi­ rectly, which, having regard to the rent paid by the tenant, is unreasonable and the Court considers it reasonable togivesuchjudgment or make such order". 20 In about June, 1980, the appellant sub-let about half of the premises, which incidentally consist of a spacious shop, or perhapsjust a little morethanhalf, to a subtenant for a period 25 of two years for therent of £225.-per month. That much was admitted by the appellant himself at the hearing, although the allegation of the other side was that the rent of thesub-tenancy was £325.- per month. But be that as it may, the learned trial Judge took it that it was £225.-. 30 The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the profit of the appellant for sub-letting part of the premises was, having regard totherentpaid by himfor thewhole premises,unreason­ able, and, with regard to the second question as to whether it would be reasonable to make an ejectment order, he again 35 decided that it would be reasonable. The appeal is based on several grounds. It was argued 201 L. Lobon J. Kokkstos τ. Pavlidoa and Others

(1982)before us today by learned counsel for the appellant in support of his appeal, that the findings of the trial Court were wrong because the appellant had a right to sub-let in accordance with thetermsofhiscontract,thathewasnotmakinganunreasonable profit because the part of the shop which he had sub-let was the best part of the premises, and,also, that thetrial Judge did not take intoconsiderationthattheappellant had to pay himself for the electricity and the water. 5 Learnedcounselfor theappellant also remindedus,in arguing this part of his appeal, that thetenant,that is to say the appel- 10 lant, was not in possession of the premises from July to September in each year, which we might add, seems to support the reasoning of the trial Judge why he considered that it was reasonable to make the order. In his elaboratejudgment the trial Judge saysthat thecriteria 15 under our'law in a case of this nature are,firstly,whether the tenant is making a profit which,having regard to therentwhich he paid to the landlord,is unreasonable, and, secondly, whether it would be reasonable tomaketheorderfor ejectment assuming that thefirstcriterionis satisfied and answered intheaffirmative. 20 In dealing with the first criterion the trial Judge had this to say: "The respondent pays a rent of £180.- and he receives one of £225.-. He is thus making a profit of £45- per month*. Inaddition however to this profit he still occupies 25 premises for his business comprising nearly half the area of the shopwhich has been divided in two. Although he pays for 10yean>a rent of £180.-per monthheis notonly making a profit of £45.- by renting half of this room, but heis also cairying onintheotherparthis own business. 30 I would definitely, in these circumstances, come to the conclusion thattheprofit heis makingis quiteunreasonable having regard to the rent he pays to the applicants". When dealing with the second criterion, thejudge said this in his judgment:"The respondent has been in possession of this shop for 10 years, always at the rent of £180.- per month. This is not the first time that he sub-leases the premises. He 202 35 1 CL.R. Kokkalos τ. PavUdou and Others L. Loin» J. himself has admitted that previously to the present sub­ tenant he had sub-let it to various persons, five or six, who stayed for a few months and then left theshop. 5 I am of the firm opinion that the respondent does not, in fact need this shop for his own business only but for making in addition a profit by sub-letting part of it. In these circumstances, I consider it quite reasonable to make an order of ejectment against him" Having heard learned counsel for the appellant today, we 10 have not been satisfied that the judgment of the trial Court is in any way wrong or that this is a case in which we could interfere. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. With the consent of counsel for the respondents, we order 15 that the stay of execution be extended until the 30th April, 1981. Appeal dismissedwith costs. I 203