1 C.L.R. 1985 May 4 [TRIANTAFYLLIDI-S, P.] IN T H E M A T T E R O F AN A P P L I C A T I O N BY PANAYIOTIS CHRISTODOULIDES FOR AN ORDER O F MANDAMUS (Application The Rent Conf.ol Law, 23/83, s.7—Case The applicant, against whom an fi 74/84). stated—Questions raising matters of law should be included issued by the Rent Control Court, No. therein. eviction applied to order was the said Court for a Case Stated under s. 7 of Law 23/83. T h e said Court accepted to include three, but refused to include the remaining four questions, which the applicant has sought to raise, in the Case Stated. Hence the present application, Held, granting the application in part, that 10 a s ' two of the said four questions raise matters of Law, they ought to have been included in the Case Stated, as the remaining two questions raise matters of fact, they whilst, were correctly excluded from the Case Stated. Application 15 granted in part. No order as to costs. Cases referred to: In re HjiCostas Stylianides
(1984)1 C.L.R. 5 1 3 ; v. Paschalidou
(1985)1 C.L.R. 4 9 ; Bracegirdle v. Oxley [19471 Κ. B. 349: 20 Harris Simon & Co. Ltd. v. Manchester City Council Γ1975] 1 All E.R. 412; Re DJMS. (a minor) [1977] 3 All E.R. 582; Barty King v. Ministry of Defence [1979] 2 All E.R. 80. 145 In re Christodoulides
(1986)Application. Application for an order of mandamus directing the Rent Control Court of Nicosia to include in Case Stated No. 206 in addition to the three questions already stated in the above Case Stated the remaining four which the applicant had sought to raise before the Supreme Court as questions of law. 5 K. Michaelides with M. Georghiou, for the applicant. N. Stylianidou (Miss), for the applicant Control Appl. No. £. 33/
- in Rent 1U Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. The applicant in the present case is the respondent in Rent Control Application No. E33/83 before the Rent Control Court of Nicosia. After the Rent Control Court issued, on the 28th September 1984, an eviction order against the applicant, counsel for the applicant applied, on the 6th October 1984, to the said Court for a Case Stated, under section 7 of the Rent Control Law, 1983 (Law 23/83), which provides for a Case Stated by way of appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law only. 15 20 The Rent Control Court forwarded to the Supreme Court the Case Stated, which is now pending before it as Case Stated No. 206, but there were included therein only three 25 out of the seven questions which the applicant—as the respondent before the Rent Control Court—had sought to raise before the Supreme Court as questions of law. The applicant now seeks an order of mandamus directing the Rent Control Court to include in such Case Stated the 30 remaining four questions. It has to be decided whether the said questions are questions of law in the sense of section 7 of Law 23/
- The said section 7 has been construed and applied in, inter alia, in re HjiCostas,
(1984)1 C.L.R. 513, 518 and 35 Stylianides v. Paschalidou (Case Stated No. 205 in which 146 1 C.L.R. In re Christodoulides Trlantafyllides P. judgment was delivered on the 7th February 1985 and is not reported yet)*. It is, also, pertinent to refer to relevant cas>lnw in England, such as Bracegirdle v. Oxley, [1947] K.B. 349, Harris Simon & Co. Ltd. v. Manchester - City Council, [1975] 1 All E.R. 412, Re D J Μ S (a minor), [1977] 3 All E.R. 582, and Barty-King v. Ministry of De fence. [1979] 2 All E.R.
- Bearing in mind how the notion of a question of law has been defined in the aforementioned case-law in Cyprus and in England. I have reached the conclusion that questions Nos. 1 and 5 in the relevant application of the applicant to the Rent Control Court, dated 6th October 1984, can properly be treated as questions of law and, therefore, they ought to have been included, together with questions Nos. 2, 4 and 7, in the Case Stated. On the other hand, ques tions Nos. 3 and 6 appear to raise, really, issues of fact and cannot be treated as questions of law in the sense of section 7 of Law 23/
- Consequently, an order of mandamus is hereby made for ihc inclusion of the said questions Nos. 1 and 5 in Case-Stated No.
- Bearing in mind that applicant has only been partly successful in this application I have decided to make no order as to its costs. Order accordingly. * Now reported in
(1985)1 C.LR. 49. 147