(1987)1987 December 21 [TR1ANTAFYLUDES Ρ DEMETRIADES KOURRIS JJ ] ANTOUANSAHAKIAN, Appellant-Respondent, ν PINELOPIKIZI ANDOTHERS, Respondents-Applicants (CaseStatedNo 208) Rent Control — Eviction — The Rent Control Law, 1983 (23/83) — Section 11(l)(h)(ti) — The five prerequisitesfor its application This appea! by way of case stated isdirectedagainst the Judgment of the RentControl Court, whereby theappellant was orderedtovacate theshop in question on the ground that it was reasonably required by the landlords for demolition and reconstructionof anew building 5 The factsof this casesufficiently appear fromthejudgment of the Court Held, dismissing the appeal
(1)In the light of the provisions of section 1l(l){h)(n)oftheRentControlLaw, 1983, thePresident oftheCourtcorrectly statedthe five prerequisitesof itsapplication,as 10 (a)The case must fall within the provisions of the Rent Control Law (b)The landlordmust give to thetenantnot lessthan four monthsnotice in writingto vacate thepremises 15 (c)The premisesarereasonably requiredbythelandlordfordemolitionand reconstruction (d)The Court mustbesatisfiedthatthelandlord hadsecuredthe necessary permit fordemolition and reconstruction, and (e) The Court must be satisfied that the landlord cannot reasonably 2 0 demolish and reconstruct without first obtaining vacant possession of the premisses
(2)The appellant has no quarrel with the findings of the Court as regards prerequisites (a), (
- b)and (d), but complains as to the findings regarding prerequisites (c)and (
- e)472 25 1C.L.R. Sabaklan v. Kid
(3)Inthecircumstancesthereisnoreasontointerfere withthefindings of thetnal Court. Appeal dismissedwith costs. Cases referredto: 5 Kontouv Solomou
(1978)1C.L.R425; Fisherv. TaylorsFurnishingStores Ltd.[1956]2 All E.R 78; Fernandez v.Watdmg[1968J1 All Ε R.994; Heath v.Drown[1972]2 All E.R. 561; Michaelidesv.lacovides
(1979)1C.L.R.123; 10 Yerasimou ν Rousoudiou
(1974)1C.L.R. 107; Chandrel v.Strevett [1974] 1All E.R. 164. Case stated. Casestated bytheChairmanof theRentControlCourtLamaca relative tohisdecision ofthe20thDecember,1984 inproceedings 15 undersection ll(i)(h)of theRentControl Uw, 1983 (LawNo.23/ 83) instituted by Pinelopi G. Kizi against Antouan Sahakian whereby an ejection orderwas issued against the appellant. M.Nicolatos,for the appellant. A. Poetis,for therespondents. 20 Cur. adv. vult TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by H.H.Judge Demetriades. DEMETRIADESJ.: The appellant, who is the tenantof a shop situated in Lamaca at 106 ErmouStreet, in theKizis arcade, was 25 ordered by the Rent Control Court of Lamaca to vacate it and deliver up possession of same toits owners on the ground thatit was reasonably required by the landlords for demolition and the reconstruction of anew building. As aresult of anapplication by theappellant tothe Presidentof 30 the Court to state a case to the Supreme Court, the President submitted totheSupreme Courtthefollowing twolegal issuesfor determination and advice: 473 ρ Demetriades J . Sabaklan v. K i l l
(1987)«
- Με βάση την προσαχθείσα μαρτυρία ήταν ανοιχτό στο Δικαστήριο Ελέγχου Ενοικιάσεων να βρει ότι τ ο επίδικον υποστατικό απαιτείτο λογικά από τους ιδιοκτήτες - αιτητές;
- Ο ρ θ ά ήεσφαλμένα εδέχθη τ ο Δικαστήριο Ελέγχου 5 Ενοικιάσεων ότι οι λέξεις 'απαιτείται λογικώς' στο άρθρο 11(ι)(η) (πρώτη γραμμή) τ ο υ Περί Ενοικιοστασίου Νόμου τ ο υ 1983 αναφέρονται και σχετίζονται μόνον με τ. εάν είναι λογικό για τ ο ν ιδιοκτήτη ναλάθη κατοχήέχοντας υπόψητην φύση και 10 έκταση των προτεινομένων μετατροπών ή της επανοικοδόμησης, νοουμένου ότιτέτοια πρόνοια ρητά περιλαμβάνεται στην τελευταία προϋπόθεση τ ο υ άρθρου 11
(1)(η) τ ο υ Περί Ενοικιοστασίου Νόμου τ ο υ 1983, ενώ δεν υπήρχε στον Περί ΕνοικιοστασίουΝόμο 15 36/1975;» (
- Onthebasisof theevidence adduced, was it reasonably open to the Rent Control Court to find that the premises concerned were reasonably required by the ownersapplicants? 20
- Rightly orwronglydidtheRentControlCourtacceptthat the words 'reasonably required' insection ll(l)(h) (first line) of theRentControlLaw 1983 refer andrelateonlyto whether itisreasonable for theowner totake uppossession, having in mind the nature and extent of the proposed alterations or 25 reconstruction, in view of the fact that such provision is expressly containedinthelastprerequisite of section 11
(1)(
- h)of the Rent Control Law 1983, whilst it did not exist in the Rent ControlLaw 36/75?») The facts of the case are ina nutshell the following: 30 The respondents are the owners of nine shops situated in Kizis arcade, one of which is,since 1957, let to the appellant who is a fitterand milling-operator (tomadoros). On the 1st December, 1983, the respondents, through their advocate, gave a four-months notice to theappellant by double- 35 registered post, by which theyasked himtovacate and deliver up thevacant possession of theshop as they intendedtodemolish it andreconstructanew building. Thisnoticewassentinaccordance 474 1 C.L.R. Sahaklan v. Klzi Demetriades J. with the provisions of section ll(l)(
- h)of the Rent Control Law, 1983 (Law 23/83), hereinafter tobe referred toas the Law 5 10 15 Thenoticewas receivedby theappellant onthe5th December, 1983, but as he failed to vacate the shop within the statutory penod of four months,the respondentsfiledan application tothe Rent ControlCourt for his ejectment Dunng the heanng of the application which started on the 8th November, 1984, the respondents produced in Court Building Permit No 635/84, issued on the 8th October, 1984, by the Municipality of Lamaca, which is the appropnate authonty for issuing permits for the demolition and construction of premises within the area of the Town of Lamaca, and by which permission for the demolition and reconstruction of the shops belonging to the respondents was granted It is to be noted that other tenants of the respondents, either willingly or after an order of the Court, had already vacated the shops they rented After heanng the evidence adduced and arguments by counsel of the parties, the Courtordered the ejectment of the appellant 20 In reaching its decision, the Court found that the five prerequisites required undersection 1l(l)(h)(u)were satisfied and proceeded to examine them Section ll(l)(h)(n)of the Law reads - 25 «11 -
(1)Ουδεμία α π ό φ α σ ι ς και ουδέν διάταγμα εκδίδεται δια την ανάκτησιν της κατοχής οιασδήποτε κατοικίας ή καταστήματος, δια το οποίον ισχύει ο π α ρ ώ ν Νόμος, ή δια την εκ τούτου έξωσιν θεομίου ενοικιαστού, πλην των ακολούθων π ε ρ ι π τ ώ σ ε ω ν (η) εις περίπτωσιν καθ' ην το ακινητοναπαιτείται λογικώς υ π ό του ιδιοκτήτου(ι) δια την καταδάφισιν τούτου οσάκις αυτή δεν συνιστά κατάχρησινδικαιώματος, (ιι) δ ι ά τ η ν κατεδάφισιν και επανοικοδόμησιν νίυυ ακινήτου, (ιιι) δι' ουσιαστικός και ριζικας πλλαγας συνεπα γόμενος την ριζικήν και ολικην με,ιαιροπήντούτουδια σκοπούς αξιοποιήσεωςτου, 475 Demctriades J . Sahaklan v. Klzi
(1987)και το Δικαστήριο είναι πεπεισμένον ότι ο ιδιοκτήτης εξησφάλισε διατ α ανωτέρω οσάκις ήτο επάναγκεςτην αναγκαίαν π ρ ο ς τούτο άδειαν και ότι ο ιδιοκτήτης δεν δύναται λογικώς να προβή εις τα εν ταις υ π ο π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ο ι ς (0, (ιι) και (ιιι) διαλαμβανόμενα άνευ ανακτήσεως της κατοχήςτου ακινήτου και νοουμένου ότι παρέσχεν ουχί βραχυτέραν των τεσσάρων μηνών έγγραφον προειδοποίησιν εις τον ενοικιαστήν να εκκένωση το ακίνητον*» 5 «(ll.-
- l)No judgment or order for the recovery of 10 possession of any dwelling-house or shop, to which this Law applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be given or made except inthe following cases:- (
- h)where the premises are reasonably required by the Landlord - 15 (i)for demolition thereof whenever thisdoes notamountto an abuse of right, (ii)for the demolition and reconstruction of new premises, or (iii) for substantial and radical alterations entailing their 20 radical and total conversion for the purpose of their development, and the Court is satisfied that the landlord has, where necessary, obtained,for the aforesaid the necessary permit and thatthelandlord could notreasonably dowhat are insub- 25 paragraphs (i), (
- ii)and (iii) set out, without obtaining possession of thepremises and provided thathe has given to the tenantnotlessthan four monthsnoticeinwriting to vacate the premises.» In the light of the provisions of section 1l(l)(h)(ii)the President 30 ofthe Court,inour view,correctly statedthefiveprerequisites as(a)The case must fall within the provisions of the RentControl Law. (
- b)The landlord must give to the tenant not less than four months notice inwriting tovacate thepremises. 476 35 1 C.L.R. Sahaklan v. Klzi Demetriades J. (
- c)The premises are reasonably required by the landlord for demolition andreconstruction (d)TheCourtmustbe satisfied thatthelandlordhadsecured the necessary permitfor demolitionand reconstruction, and 5 (
- e)the Court must be satisfied that the landlord cannot reasonably demolish and reconstruct without first obtaining the vacant possession of the premises The trial Court, after examining separately each of the five prerequisites and after taking into consideration the evidence 10 adduced,theLaw andtheauthonties,reachedtheconclusionthat all five prerequisites existed and,therefore, therespondents were entitled toan order for ejectment The appellant has no quarrel with the findings of the Court as regards prerequisites (a), (
- b)and (d), but complains as to the 15 findings regarding prerequisites (c)and (
- e)Hiscounsel submitted that the Court failed tomake separate findings as tothe reasona bleness required by prerequisites (c)and(
- e)However, the tnal Court, in its judgment, clearly dea't with prerequisites (c)and (e)separately 20 Regarding prerequisite (c),thetnalCourt, after dealincwiththe case law on the issue (both English and of the Cyprus *. upreme Court, ιe Kontou ν Solomou,
(1978)1C L R 425, ' 2 8 ,Fisher ν TaylorsFurnishingStores Ltd (1956] 2 All ΕR 78,-*mandez ν Walding[1968] 1All ΕR 994, Heath ν Drown [1972J 2All Ε R 25 561, Michaehdes ν lacovides,
(1979)1 C L R 123, 130, Yerasimou ν Rousoudiou
(1974)1 C L R 107, 112-113 and Chandrel ν Strevett [19471 1All ΕR 164,167), found thatinthe light of the evidence before it and the authontieson the subject, the premises were reasonably required by the landlord for 30 demolition andreconstruction On thefifthprerequisite the tnal Courtreached theconclusion thatinviewofthefacts before it,itwas reasonable forthelandlords in ordertoproceed with theexecution of theworks for which the building permitwas issued, torequirethevacantpossession ofthe 35 premises. Havingregard tothefindings ofthetnalCourt,we see noreason to interfere with them Having regard totheprovisions of theLaw 477 Demetriades J. Sahaklanv.Klzi
(1987)and the facts thatwereplaced before thetrialCourt, we find thatit rightly found that the demolition and reconstruction of the premises cannot reasonably be effected without obtaining possession of them. Inthe result, the appeal isdismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed withcosts. s 478