clr/1985/1985_1_764.pdf

(1)as amended by Law 5 24/77—The Displaced Tenants Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law 4176— Appellant a "displaced tenant"—The rent fixed by the original tenancy was £30 per month—Such rent was later reduced by the Tribunal under Law 4/76 to £28 per 10 month—After the enactment of Law 24/77 appellant claimed reduction of the originally agreed rent by 20 per cent as from the date of the original tenancy (30.10.74) under section 15

(1)of Law 36/75 as amended by Law 24/77—There is nothing to prevent the appellant from 15 enjoying the benefit of either of the above enactmentsLaws 4/76 and 24/77—Consequently appellant is entitled to such reduction, but only as from 1.4.77 (see above un­ der Interpretation of Statutes). On the 30.10.1974 the respondents let to the appellant 20 a flat together with its furniture for residential purposes for a period of one year commencing on 1.11.1974 at the rent of £30 per month. The tenant was not entitled to any relief by way of reduction of rent, as the reduction by 20 per cent provided by s.3(l) of The Immovable Pro- 25 perty for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law 764 Ί C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Demetriades v. Vassiados Estates 51/74, applied only to tenancies existing on the 14.10.1974. The enactment of the Rent Control Law 36/75 did not change the situation because s. 15

(1)of the said law con­ fined the right to reduction of rent by 20 per cent to tenancies contracted on or before 14.10.1974. After the enactment of the Displaced Tenants Immov­ able Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provi­ sions) Law 4/76 the appellant, who was a "displaced te­ nant" within the meaning of s. 2

(1)of this Law, applied to the tribunal created by such law to fix the rent pay­ able by him in respect of the said flat. The flat was co­ vered by s. 5 of the said Law. The tribunal fixed the . rent at £28 per month. Its decision became final. Section 15 of Law 36/75 was subsequently amended by the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Law 24/77, extend­ ing the application of section 15

(1)to premises let before the 31.12.

1. As a result the appellant claimed a reduc­ tion by 20 per cent of the contractual monthly rent of £30 as from 1.11.1974 and informed the respondents that he would not pay them any rent until the amount of £
2. which, according to his calculations, he had paid in excess of £24 per month, be set off against future rents. As a result the respondents filed an application for evic­ tion for arrears of rent and the respondent counterclaimed for a declaration of the Court recognising his right to reduce the contractual rent by 20 per cent as aforesaid. Eventually the only issue that remained for determina­ tion was whether the appellant was or was not entitled to the benefit provided in section 15 of Law 36/75 as amended by Law 24/
3. It should be noted that though Law 24/77 was published in the Official Gazette of the 27.5.77 its operation was given effect as from 1.4.77 (see section 3 of the Law). 35 The trial Court dismissed the tenant's (appellant's) claim for reduction of rent by 20 per cent by virtue of s. 15 of Law 36/75 as amended by Law 24/
4. Hence the present appeal. The grounds of appeal are the fol­ lowing: 765 Decnetriades v. Vessiades Estates

(1)of Law 36/75 such relief could only be claimed by tenant who "is proved to have been substantially affected by the abnormal situation**.

(2)Law 4/76 was enacted to provide an additional re- 35 medy in the case of "displaced persons" irrespective as to whether they were benefited or not under Law 36/

1. Law 4/76 did not repeal or restrict the application of Law 766 15 1 C.L.R. Demetriades v. Vessiades Estates 36/
2. Section 3 of Law 4/76 provides that the Law is applicable "notwithstanding the provisions of any other Law". 5 10 15 20

(3)Notwithstanding the enactment of Law 4/76 it was found necessary to extent the provisions of Law 36/75 to "displaced tenants" in respect,of tenancies contracted on or before 31.12.76 by the enactment of Law 24/77.

(4)There is nothing depriving a "displaced tenant" from enjoying the benefit of either Law 4/76 or Law 24/77 or in case the relief given by law 4/1976 is less than that — of Law 24 of 1977 which amended Law 36 of 1975, to deprive such tenant from such benefit. If the law is interpreted in the way the trial Court has done, then there would be no reason for the extension of the benefit of reduction of the rent to "displaced tenants" of residential premises in respect of tenancies contracted on or before the 31st December, 1976, as exclusive remedy was given to them by Law 4/76.

(5)In view of the above the appellant's claim for reduction of the original rent by 20% should succeed as from 1.4.77. Appeal partly allowed. No order as to costs. dues referred to: 25 Blyth v. Blyth and Pugh [1965] 3 W.L.R. 365; HjiErini Nicola v. Charalambos Christofi and Another

(1965)1 C.L.R. 324. Appeal. 30 Appeal by respondent against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Boyadjis, S.D.J.) dated the 20th June, 1978 (Rent Control Appl. Noi 228/77) whereby bis application under the Rent Control Laws by which he claimed reduction of rent by 20% of the residential pre767 Oemetriados v. Vessiades Estates

(1965)mises occupied by him, was dismissed. A. Ladas, for the appellant. Μ Pelides, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. J.: The judgment of the Court will be livered by Mr. Justice Savvides. MALACHTOS de- 5 SAWIDES J.: This is an appeal against the dismissal by the District Court of Nicosia of an application under the Rent Control Laws by which appellant claimed reduction of rent by twenty per cent of residential premises occupied 10 by him and rented to him by the respondents. It was the allegation of the appellant that he was entitled to such re­ duction under the provisions of the Rent Control Law No. 36 of 1975, as amended by the Rent Restriction (Amend­ ment) Law No. 24 of 1977. 15 The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: The respondents are the owners of a block of flats suated at 10, Navarinou Street, Nicosia. si- On October 30, 1974, by virtue of a written tenancy agreement, the respondents let for residential purposes flat No. 8 of their said block of flats to the appellant, together with its furniture, for a period of one year commencing on the 1st November, 1974, at the agreed rent of £30.- per month. 20 At the time when the tenant took over possession of 25 this one-bedroom flat, there was no law in force covering such premises granting the tenant any relief from his con­ tractual obligation to pay the rent agreed upon by virtue of his contract, in as much as the reduction by 20 per cent provided for in s. 3

(1)of the Immovable Properly for Re- 30 sidential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law No. 51 of 1974 applied only to those tenancies which were existing on the 14th October, 1974, the date when the Law was published in the official Gazette of the Republic. On the 11th July, 1975, the Rent Control Law No. 36 of 768 35 1 C.L.R. 5 10 IS 20 25 30 Demetriedes v. Vassiudes Estates Sawides J. 1975 was published. Its enactment did not change the situation as regards the appellant as far as his obligation to pay his agreed rent in toto was concerned. Relief in this respect was again denied to him because s. 15

(1)of the Law, granting a right to tenants substantially affected by the abnormal situation to claim reduction of their rent by 20 per cent, applied again only to tenancies contracted on or before the 14th October,

1. The appellant continued in possession as statutory tenant under Law No. 36 of
2. Thus the law on the matter stood on the 13th February, 1976, when the Displaced Tenants ' Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law No. / of 1976 was enacted. Thereupon, the tenant applied in March, 1976, to the District Officer of Nicosia, the tribunal appointed under the Law, to fix the rent payable by him in respect of the flat in his possession, tt was never in dispute that the tenant was at all material times a "displaced tenant" within the meaning of s. 2

(1)of this Law. It was furthermore common ground that the provisions of the Law covered the flat in question which clearly fell under s. .5 thereof. On the 27th March, 1976, the District Officer fixed the rent at £28.- per month and communicated his decision to the interested parties purporting to act under s. 3 of the Law. The appellant protested to the District Officer for his decision but such protest met no favourable reply. As a result, but after the expiration of thirty'days provided by section 3

(5)of the Law for filing an application to the Court against the Tribunal's decision, he instituted in Court proceedings by Application No. 199/75, under section 3

(5)of the Law, which were dismissed as being out of time. The decision of the District Officer fixing the rent at £28.- per month became final. Section 15 of Law 36 of 1975 was subsequently amended by the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Law of 1977 (Law 24 of 1977) published on the 27th May, 1977, extending the application of section 15

(1)to premises let before the 31st December, 1976. As a result, the appellant informed the respondents by letter, through his counsel, dated 15th 40 June, 1977, that he was reducing his contractual monthly rent from £30.- by 20 per cent as from 1.11.1974 on- 35 769 Sawides J- Demetriades v. Vessiades Estates

(1985)wards. He further informed them that he would not pay them any rent until the amount of £180.- which, according to his calculations, he had been paying in excess of £24.-, be set against future rents. The respondents rejected the appellant's claim and on 14.6.1977 they addressed to him by registered post a written notice demanding payment of the rents in arrears within 21 days from receipt thereof. The appellant having failed to comply with the aforesaid demand, the landlords filed an application on 14.7.1977 under the Rent Control Law 1975 and regulation 3

(1)made thereunder, praying for:- 5 10 1. An order for possession against the appellant under section 16

(1)(a) of the Law;

1. Declaration that the appellant is not entitled to any 15 reduction of his rent under Law No. 36 of 1975, his rent having been fixed at his own application by the'District Officer under Law No. 4 of 1976;
2. Order fixing the rent of the furnished flat at £35.per month from 1.8.1977 onwards; '
3. 20 Costs of the application. The appellant denied in his statement of defence that the respondents were entitled to anyone of the aforementioned reliefs and counterclaimed for a declaration of the Court recognising his right to reduce his original monthly 25 rent of £30.- by 20 per cent for as long as section 15 of Law 36 of 1975 as amended by Law 24 of 1977 remained in force. The appellant, shortly before the date of the hearing of the application paid to his landlords' counsel all the arrears 30 of rent calculated on the basis of the decision of the District Officer. As a consequence, the respondents withdrew in Court their claim for eviction. They also withdrew their claim for an increase in the rent because, as their counsel explained, the Court had no jurisdiction to fix the rent for 35 this flat under section 7 of Law 36 of 1975 upon which their claim was based. 770 1 C.L.R. Demetriades v. Vessiades Estates Sawldes J. What, thus, remained to be tried was whether in the circumstances of the case, the appellant was or was not entitled to the benefit provided in section 15 of Law 36 of 1975 as later amended. A negative declaration to that 5 effect was prayed in para.

(2)of the application and an affirmative declaration to the same effect was claimed in the counterclaim. No evidence was called by either side, as there was no dispute on the factual situation. They only addressed the 10 Court on the legal aspect of the case. Before embarking on the issues before us, we find it necessary to make a brief reference to the relevant provisions in the laws relating to the present case. The Rent Control Law 1975 (Law 36 of 1975) was IS enacted for the purpose of "amending, consolidating and incorporating all rent control laws and making provision on collateral matters". It expressly repealed all relevant laws in force at the time. Section 15 of Law 36 of 1975 provides as follows: 20 25 "15.-1 During the abnormal situation and in any case not later than the thirty-first December 1975, ail the rents payable for premises shall be reduced by twenty per cent as from the twentieth July 1974 and the tenant shall pay, as from that date, the sum so reduced in full satisfaction of his liabilities towards the landlord: Provided that such reduction shall not apply to any rents which at the date of the coming into operation of this Law, are paid under the provisions of- 30 35 (a) the Rent (Control) Law as applied before the thirtieth August, 1974; or (b) the Rent Control Business Premises Law save where the rent of the business premises is higher than the one paid before the thirty-first December, 1969; or (c) the Depressed Tenants Relief Law; or 771 Sawides J. Demetriades v. Vassiades Estates

(1985)(

1. d)any contract of tenancy made after the fourteenth October, 1974; Provided further that nothing in this section contained shall apply(
2. a)unless the tenant is proved to have been sub- 5 stantially affected by the abnormal situation; or (
3. b)where the landlord is proved to have been substantially affected by the application of the provisions of this Law in consequence of the abnormal situation; or 10 (
4. c)where the tenant of the dwelling house is not a Cypriot permanently residing in Cyprus.

(2)Any reduction of rent of a dwelling house made under the provisions of the Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law, 15 1974 shall be deemed to be a reduction made under the provisions of this Part." Sub-section

(2)of section 15 refers to the provisions which existed in section 3 of Law 51/1974, a law which was enacted shortly after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus 20 containing temporary provision to remedy the consequential effect of the Turkish invasion upon the tenants of residential premises, under sub-section

(1)of section 3 of which the rent of any residential premises not covered by Ihe Rent Control Laws, is reduced by 20 per cent as from 25 date of the coming into operation of the Law (the 14th October, 1974). The Displaced Tenants Immovables for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1976 (Law 4 of 1976) was enacted as it appears in its title and its preamble as 30 a necessary social measure aiming at a just distribution amongst all citizens of the burdens created by the Turkish invasion and intended for the protection of displaced tenants concerning the rent payable by them for the occupation of house accommodation and for securing to them 35 house accommodation. Section 3 of the Law provides "that during the abnormal situation and notwithstanding the pro772 1 C.L.R. Demetriades v. Vessiades Estates Sawidos J . visions of any other law in force, the following provisions shall be in force and shall apply." Then section 3 provides that the rent payable by displaced tenants for immovables for residential purposes shall be fixed by the District Of5 ficer of the district where the immovable is situate; that the District Officer shall fix such rent taking into consider­ ation all the circumstances of each case including, inter alia, the personal circumstances of the landlord and the tenant, the rent payable for the same immovable or other 10 iimilar immovable in the area on or before 15.7.1974 and the 20 per cent reduction of rents made under the Rent Control Law 1975: Provided that in no case the rent fixed by the District Officer shall exceed the 80 per cent of the rent payable on or before 15.7.1974 nor shall it exceed 15 the rent payable on 13.2.1976 when Law 4 of 1976 came into operation (sub-section

(1)). A duty is imposed on the District Officer to do so within thirty days from receiving a written application to that effect by either the tenant or the landlord (sub-section 2). The rent so fixed shall, as 20 from the date of filing the application, be deemed to be the rent which the tenant has the obligation to pay to the landlord independently of the provisions of any existing tenancy agreement (sub-section 3). Any person dissatisfied from the decision of the District Officer is given the right 25 to apply to the Court established under section 4, for re­ vision of such decision. 30 By section 2 of the Rent Control (Amendment) Law of 1977 (Law 24 of 1977) section 15 of the Rent Control Law 1975 (Law 36 of 1975), the principal law, was amended as follows: «2. To άρθρον 15 τοϋ βασικού" νόμου τροποποιείται ως ακολούθως: 35 40 (σ) Δια Trie αντικαταστάσεως εις το εδάφιον

(1)αύτοϋ των λέξεων '31 η Μαίου, 1977' (δια των όποίων αντικατεστάθησαν αϊ λέξεις '31η Δεκεμβρίου. 1975* (γραμμή 2) διά τοϋ άρθρου 2 τοΰ Νόμου 17 τοϋ 1977), δια των λέξεων '31η Μαρτίου, 1978'. (β) διό της αντικαταστάσεως της παραγράφου (δ) της πρώτης επιφυλάξεως τοΰ εδαφίου (Ι) αύτοΰ διά της ακολούθου νέας παραγράφου: 773 Sewide» J. Demetrledee v. Vessiades Estates

(1985)'(δ) ΟΙασδήποτε συμβάσεως ενοικιάσεως συναφθείσης μετά τήν 31ην Δεκεμβρίου, 1976.' (γ) διά της αντικαταστάσεως της παραγράφου (α) τής δευτέρας επιφυλάξεως τοϋ εδαφίου (Ι) αυτού διά τής ακολούθου νέας παραγράφου: 5 *(α) έκτος έάν ό ενοικιαστής αποδεδειγμένως έχπ έπηρεασθή ουσιωδώς έκ της έκρυθμου καταστάσεως και έξακολουθή ούτως να έπηρεάΖηται, νοουμένου Οτι ό εκτοπισθείς ενοικιαστής τεκμαίρεται ότι έχει ούτος έπηρεασθή καί εξακολουθεί νά επηρεάζεται. 10 Διά τους σκοπούς τής παραγράφου ταύτης 'εκτοπι­ σθείς ενοικιαστής' σημαίνει παν πρόσωπον δπερ κατά τόν αμέσως πρό τής Τουρκικής εισβολής χρόνον είχε τήν μάνιμον αΰτοϋ κατοικίαν ή κυρίσν επαγγελματικήν στέγην, αναλόγως τής περιπτώσεως, είς περιοχήν ήτις <i>c έκ τής είσβολής κατέστη απροσπέλαστος ή έκηρύχθη ώς δυσπραγοΰσα περιοχή συμφώνως προς τάς δι­ ατάξεις τοϋ εδαφίου

(2)τοϋ άρθρου 3 τοϋ παρόντος Νόμου ή γειτνιάζει προς τάς γραμμάς άνππαρατάξεως* καί 15 20 (δ) διά τής προσθήκης, μετά τό εδάφιον (Ι), τοϋ α­ κολούθου νέου εδαφίου, τοΰ εδαφίου

(2)έπαναριθμουμένου ώς εδαφίου

(3). '

(2)Έν περιπτώσει οιασδήποτε αμφισβητήσεως ώς npoc τήν έφαρμογήν τής παραγράφου (α) ή τής πα- 25 ραγράφου (β) τής δευτέρας επιφυλάξεως τοϋ εδαφί­ ου (Ι) τοϋ παρόντος άρθρου, ό αμφισβητών τήν έ­ φαρμογήν ταύτης δύναται νά προσφυγή είς τό Δικα­ στήρον ι πράς έπίλυσιν τής διαφοράς'.» (2. Section 15 of the principal law is amended as follows: (

1. a)By substituting the words '31st May 1977' (whereby the words '31st December 1975* (line 2) were substituted by section 2 of Law 17 of 1977) in sub-section I with the words '31st March 1978*. (
2. b)By substituting paragraph (
3. d)of the first proviso of sub-section 1 by the following new paragraph: 774 30 35 1 C.L.R. Demetriades v. Vassiades Estates Sawides J. *(
4. d)Any contract of tenancy made after the 31st December 1976'. 5 (
5. c)By substituting paragraph (
6. a)of the second proviso of sub-section I with the following new paragraph: 10 '(
7. a)Unless the tenant is proved to have been substantially affected by the abnormal situation and continues to be so affected, provided that a displaced tenant is presumed to have been so affected and continues to be so affected. 15 20 For the purpose of this paragraph 'displaced tenant" means any person who at the time immediately preceding the Turkish invasion had his permanent place of abode or main business premises, as the case may be, in an area which by reason of the invasion became inaccessible or was declared to be a depressed area by virtue of the provisions of sub-section

(2)of section 3 of this Law or is in the neighbourhood of the 'confrontation lines', and (d) By adding, after sub-section

(1), the following new sub-section and renumbering sub-section

(2)as sub-section

(3). 4 25 2. In case of any dispute concerning the application of paragraph (

1. a)or paragraph (
2. b)of the second proviso of sub-section

(1)of this section, the person disputing its applicability may file a recourse to the Court for the determination of the dispute' "). Though Law 24 of 1977 was published in the official Gazette of the Republic of the 27th May, 1977, its opera30 tion was given effect as from 1st April, 1977 (see section 3 of the Law). The learned Senior District Judge, in his judgment proceeded to construe the relative provisions of Laws 36/75 and 4/76 and after comparing the aforesaid enactments came 35 to the following conclusion:-"The earlier statute (Law 36/75) is, because of its nature, a general statute creating certain rights in favour of tenants of shops as well as residential premises in the field of rent control. The subsequent 775 Sewides J . Oemetriades v. Vassiados Estates

(1985)statute (Law 4/76) is a special statute containing provisions applicable only to a special class of the population, namely, the displaced tenants of immovables for residential purposes, also on matters of rent control...." Then he embarked at some length on the principle that 5 subsequent laws abrogate prior contrary ones and the extent to which such principle is qualified by the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant" (general things do not derogate from special things) and "generalia specialibus derogant" (special things derogate from general things) and 10 also the extent of the principles of repeal of general enactments by special enactments and concluded as follows: "I will venture to repeat only that since the passing of the said Law No. 4/76, the provisions of the general law No. 36/75 ceased to apply to the case of the 15 present respondent which was exclusively governed by the provisions of the said special law." On a statement made by counsel for appellant that the amending law 24/77 is also a special law, he found that the amending law being part and parcel of the general 20 Law No. 36/75, is also a general law. Finally, in dealing with the proposition of counsel for appellant that it was the intention of the legislator to give retrospective effect to amending Law 24/77 so as to apply to rents which were payable from 20.7.74 the learned Senior District Judge, 25 after reviewing the Case Law of our Supreme Court and also the English Case Law, rejected such proposition and concluded that under the express provisions of section 3 of Law 24/77, only limited retrospective operation was given to Law 24/77, as from the 1st April, 1977, and not 30 any retrospective operation as from 20.7.74. In the result, he dismissed the appellant's claim from reduction of rent by 20 per cent by virtue of the Rent Control Law 36/75, as amended by Law 24/77 and made a declaration as per respondents prayer under paragraph

(2)of their applica- 35 tion to that effect. As a result appellant lodged the present appeal contending that:

1. The learned trial Judge erred in holding that s.15 of the Rent Control Law, Law 36/75 as amended by s. 776 1 C.L.R. Oemetriadas v. Vessiades Estates Sewides J- 2 of Law 24/77 appUes to rents from April 1st 1977 and not to rents from 20th July,
2. 5
3. The learned trial Judge erred in holding that the Court constituted under Law 36/75 does not today have jurisdiction to adjudicate on rents which became payable before the enactment of Law 4/76, in cases where the tenant would also come under the provisions of Law 4/
5. 10 Consequently the learned trial Judge should have granted relief to the appellant for the rents of the period 1.11.1974 to 28.2.1976 under s. 15 of Law 36/ 75 as amended by Law 24/
6. Learned counsel on both sides have by their elaborate addresses advanced their arguments on the above grounds. 15 We shall deal with the grounds of appeal in their numerical order and we shall proceed to examine ground

(1)of this appeal first. It is well settled that statutes are not to be construed retrospectively, unless a retrospective effect is clearly in20 tended. Willmer, L.J. in Blyth v. Blyth and Pugh [1965] 3 W.L.R. 365, at 371 expounded on this principle as follows: 25 30 "Authority is so abundant as scarcely still to be needed for the proposition that statutes are construed as operating only on cases or on facts which come into existence after the statutes were passed, unless a retrospective effect be clearly intended. A retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation otherwise than as regards a matter of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of an enactment". The above dictum was cited with approval by our Supreme Court in HfiErini Nicola v. Charalambos Chri35 stofi and Another

(1965)1 C.L.R. 324 at p. 335. In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 11th edition at page 205 we read: 777 Sawides J. Demetriades v. Vassiades Estates

(1985)"A statute is not to be construed to have a greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary. Even in construing a section which is to a certain extent retrospective, the maxim ought to be borne in mind as applicable whenever the line is -s reached at which the words of the section cease to be plain. For it is to be observed that the retrospective effect of a statute may be partial in its operation." We are in agreement with the trial Court that it is clear from the express words of section 3 of Law 24 of 1977 10 that only limited retrospective operation was given to Law 24 of 1977 as from the 1st April,

1. In the result this ground of appeal fails. We come next to the remaining grounds of appeal. We find ourselves unable to agree with the result reached 15 by the learned Senior District Judge, that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the reduction of the rent under the provisions of law 24/
2. Under the provisions of the Rent Control Law 1975 (Law 36 of 1975) a law which was enacted for the purpose of 20 "amending, consolidating and incorporating all rent control laws",, all rents payable in respect of premises for which the law applied were automatically reduced by 20 per cent in respect of tenancies contracted on or before the 14th October,
3. The duration of the law was fixed as ex- 25 tending during the continuation of the existence of the abnormal situation and in any event not later than the 31st December, 1975, a period which by subsequent laws was extended from year to year till the repeal of this law. Law 36/75 incorporated in this respect a similar provision 30 contained in the Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law (Law 51 of 1974) but extended such relief to tenants of all premises and not premises occupied for residential purposes. Under the second proviso to s. 15

(1)of Law 36/75 such relief could only 35 be claimed by a tenant who "is proved to have been substantially affected by the abnormal situation". Law 4/76 was enacted to provide an additional remedy in the case of "displaced persons" irrespective as to whether 778 1 C.L.R. Demetrlades v. Vawlades Estates Sawldes J. they were benefited or not under Law 36 of 1975 without however repealing or restricting the application of such law. Section 3 of such law provides that the law is applicable "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law". Such 5 benefit was not automatically bestowed as in the case of Law 36 of 1975 but it was subject to and to the extent to be decided by the tribunal established by such law. A "displaced tenant! is defined by s. 2 of such law as being any person who immediately before the Turkish invasion 10 had his permanent place of abode in an area which as a result of the invasion has become inaccessible. Notwithstanding the enactment of such law which was aimed at granting relief to "displaced tenants", in 1977 it was found necessary to extent the provisions of the Rent 15 Control Law 36 of 1975 to "displaced tenants" in respect of tenancies contracted on or before 31st December, 1976 as against the 14th October, 1974 provided by Law 36 of 1975, by the enactment of the Rent Control (Amendment) Law 1977 (Law 24 of 1977). "Displaced tenant' is 20 defined under Law 24 of 1977 in the same terms as those in law 4/

1. An additional benefit extended to "displaced tenants" under Law 24/1977 was a presumption to the effect that a "displaced tenant" is to be deemed as having been and continuing to be substantially affected. 25 Bearing in mind the provisions of Laws 4 of 1976 and 24 of 1977 we find nothing depriving a "displaced tenant" from enjoying the benefit of either of such enactments or in case the relief given by law 4/1976 is less than that of Law 24 of 1977 which amended Law 36 of 1975, to de30 prive such tenant from such benefit. If we interpret the law in the way the trial Court has done, then we see no reason for the extension of the benefit of reduction of the rent to "displaced tenants"? of residential premises in respect of tenancies contracted on or before the 31st Decem35 ber, 1976, as exclusive remedy was given to them by Law 4/
2. In the result we find that the appellant was entitled to the benefit extended to him by the amending Law 24/77 and in consequence his claim for reduction of the original 40 rent of £30 per month by 20% should succeed as from 1st April,
3. 779 Sawides J . Dematriades v. Vassiades Estates

(1985)It should be observed that after the decision in this application was delivered (on 20.6.1978) the Lease of Immovables for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1978 (Law 56/78) was enacted to regulate matters touching leases of immovables used for residential purposes 5 for refugees. By this law, the Displaced Tenants Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) . Law, 1976 (Law 4/76) was repealed and special provisions were enacted for the fixing of rent in the case of "refugees", a definition the meaning of which is the same as that given 10 for displaced tenants by Law 4/76 and the Rent Control Laws. All Rent Control Laws of 1975 till 1980 as well as Law 56/78 were repealed by the Rent Control Law 1983, (Law 23/83). The present case, however concerns an issue which arose during the period the previous laws were in force and it concerns a period as from the 1st April, 1977, the date of the retrospective operation of Law 24/77 for so long as the Rent Control Laws 1975-1977 were applicable. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the judgment of the trial Court is set aside and an order is made whereby the rent of the subject-matter premises is reduced to £24.per month as from the 1st April, 1977 for so long as section 15 of the Rent Control Law 36/75 as amended by 25 Law 24/77 remained in force. In the circumstances of the case we make no order for costs. Appeal partly allowed with no order as to costs. 30 780 15 20