(1988)1987 October 26 {TR1ANTAFYLUDES Ρ LORIS STYLHN1DES JJ) PANAYIOTIS TELEMACHOU, Appellant - Respondent. v. CHRYSA PAPARES, Responden t-Applicant (CivilAppeal No. 7212). RentControl—The Rent ControlLaw23/83—The Rent ControlCourt — It is a Court of Law — Whether it can act on the basisof its own knowledge, information and opinion — Question determined in the negative — The relevant provision to the contrary as regards the English Rent Tribunals is not applicable m Cyprus — Matters m 5 respect of whichjudicialnotice can be taken—The inapplicabilityof the rulesrelatingto the admissibilityof evidence. Constitutional Law— ConstitutionArt. 30 1and Art 30 2. The issue that arose for determination in this appeal from the judgment of the Rent ControlCourtsitting at Limassol whereby the 10 appellant was ordered to deliver vacant possession of the subject premises to the respondent, on the ground that the premises are reasonably required for occupation by the son of the respondent,is whetherthe RentControl Courtisempowered toact,notonlyonthe basis of the evidence adduced, but, also, on its own knowledge, 15 information andopinion. In this case the trial Courtacted on such knowledge, information and opinion. Held, allowing the appeal:
(1)Article 30.1 prohibits the establishment of judicial committees exceptional Courts under any name whatsoever. Paragraph 2 secures the right of every personin thedeterminationof hiscivilrightsandobligations, interalia,toa fair hearing by an independent impartial and competent Court established by law.
(2)The RentControlCourtisinthelight of therelevant provisions of Law 23/83 inconjunction withArt.30 of theConstitutionaCourt 12 20 " 1 C.L.R. 5 Telemachou v. Papares ofLaw.Itcanonlyactonthe basisofevidenceadducedbefore it. It may only take judicial notice of various matters which are so notorious or clearly established that evidence of their existence is unnecessary.Theonlyrelexation whichisimported byLaw23/83, isastotheadmissibilityoftheevidence. Appealallowed. Noorderasto costs. Newtrialordered. Casesreferredto: Keramourgia*AIAS»Ltd. v.Christoforou
(1975)1 C.L.R.38; 10 Pastellopouiosv. Republic
(1985)2C.L.R. 165; R. v. Brighton andArea Rent Tribunal ExParte MarineParade EstatesLtd. [1950]1 AllE.R.946. Appeal. Appealbyrespondent againstthejudgment oftheRent Control 15 CourtofLimassoldatedthe21stMarch.l986(Appl.NoE 112/85) whereby hewasordered todelivervacantpossession ofashopat No.225AyiosAndreasStreet, Limassol on the ground that itwas reasonably required for occupation bythe son of the applicant. Ph. Clerides,for the appellant. 20 S. Papakyriacou, forthe respondent. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: The Judgment of the Court will be delivered byMr.Justice Stylianides. STYLIAN1DESJ.:Thisappeal isdirected againstaJudgmentof theRent Control Court sittingat Limassol. 25 'BythesaidJudgment the appellant-respondent wasordered to delivervacant possession ofthesubjectpremises -ashop situated atNo.225,AyiosAndreasStreet, Limassol -on theground thatit isreasonablyrequired foroccupation oftheson ofthe respondent -applicant, in virtue of s. ll{l)(g) of the Rent Control Law, 1983 30 (No.23/83). IntheJudgment underappeal, atp. 65oftherecord, itisstated that the Rent Control Court is empowered to act on its own knowledge, information and opinion besides the evidence „,, adduced, asthatCourt isaspecialized Courtwhichkeepsunders. 9 oftheLawtheRegistersofejectments andrentsand onthe basis 13 Styllanldes J. Telemachou v. Papares
(1988)of English jurisprudence, whereby the Rent Tribunals are empowered to rely not only on the evidence, but on their own knowledgeand opinion.ThecaseR. v.Rent Tribunals[1950]1All E.R. 950, iscited in support of the above. TheRentControl CourtofLimassol,inreachingitsfindings and 5 conclusions in the Judgment under appeal, used, not only the evidence adduced, but personal knowledge, information and opinion of its President. A fundamental point is raised. Is the Rent Control Court established by s. 4 of Law 23/83 empowered to act on its own 10 knowledge, information and opinion as the English Rent Tribunals? Thejudicial power inthe Republic isexercised bythe Supreme Court of Justice and such inferior Courts as may, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, be provided by a Law made 15 thereunder (Article 152.1). Article 30.1 prohibits the establishment of judicial committees and exceptional Courts under any name whatsoever. Paragraph 2 secures the right of every person in the determination of hiscivilrightsand obligations, interalia, to a fair 20 hearing by an independent, impartial and competent Court established by law. These constitutional commandments were considered by this Court in, inter alia, Keramourgia «AIAS» Ltd. v. Yiannakis Christoforou
(1975)1 C.L.R. 38 and Pastellopoulos v. The 25 flepuW/c
(1985)2 C.L.R.
- The Rent Control Law, Cap. 86, which provided for the establishment of a Board, was brought into conformity with the Constitution bytheRent (Control) (Amendment) Law, 1968,(No. 8/68) bytheabolition oftheBoardanditsreplacementby«Court». 30 The Rent Control (Business Premises) Law, 1961,(No. 17/61) and the Rent Control Law, 1975, (No. 36/75) provided for the establishment of a Court. The Rent Control Court of Limassol was set up bys. 4 of Law 23/
- Its jurisdiction and matters relating to its exercise are 35 governed bythe General LawoftheLand exceptwhere there are specific provisions in the said legislation or the Rules made thereunder. 14 1 C.L.R. Telemachou v. Papares Stylianides J. Section 5 of the Law in operation isa replica of s. 4
(2)of the Rent Control Law, 1975, (No. 36/75) and is slightly differently worded from s. 4
(2)of Law 17/61. Itgoverns the admissibilityof evidence, the calling and recalling of witnesses and related 5 matters. TherelevantprovisionsoftheRentControlRules,1983arethat the proceedings before the Court are ofsummary nature with the object ofspeedy and effective administration ofjustice (Rule3(f)); the order of callinga witnessisasprovided inthe Civil Procedure 10 Rules; the Court has power to put questions to the witnesses for carryingoutofthenecessaryinquiryforthesolutionofthedispute; the Court, further, hasapower',atanystageoftheproceedings,to call or recall witnesses for the purpose of the inquiry -(Rule4). Having taken into consideration the material provisions of the 15 Rent Control Law 23/83, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution, we are of the view that the Rent Control Court is a Court of Law and in the exercise of its jurisdiction has to hear and determine a case on the evidence before it. Itcan only give judgment affecting the civil rights - the 20 rights of property of a litigant -on the evidence before it. It may onlytakejudicialnoticeofvariousmatters,whichareso notorious or clearly established that evidence of their existence is unnecessary. The only relaxation which is imported by Law23/ 83, isas tothe admissibility of the evidence. The Rules relating to 25 admissibility do not fetter the Rent Control Court. In R v. Brighton and Area Rent Tribunal Ex Parte Marine Parade Estates
(1936), Ltd. [1950] 1All E.R. 946,.on which the Rent Control Court of Limassol relied, it was held that the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, did not require 30 vhat proceedings of a Rent Tribunal under the Act should necessarily involve a hearing likethat of a Court, but the Act and the Regulations made thereunder contemplated that the Tribunal might act on its own knowledge and information, without evidence, unlesssuch evidence submitted, and without a hearing 35 except on notice from a party. LordGoddardinhisJudgmentcharacteristicallysaidatp.949:«Nocourt can proceed to hear acasewithout having some evidence before it, nor can it give any judgment affecting a 15 Stylianldes J. Telemachou v. Papares
(1988)person's rights to property unless that person not only is before the court, but also has an opportunity of crossexamining theotherparty.Parliament, however, hassaidthat theordinaryprocedure towhichlawyersareaccustomedshall not applyto these cases.» 5 After citing the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Regulations, 1949, made pursuant to powers conferred by the Act, hesaid atp.950:«These proceedings have not been conducted in a way which would be tolerated in an ordinary court, but the 10 ordinary courtsdo not havestatuteswhich permit them toact on their own knowledge and without any evidence.» Neither the English Rent Act of 1949, nor the English Regulations are part of our Law. The procedure to be followed by a Rent Control Court in 15 Cyprus is, as we have stated, that of the ordinary Court of first instance with the relaxation asto the admissibility of evidence to which we have adverted and the admission of the reports of experts. ThetrialCourt relied intheJudgment underappeal partlyonits 20 own knowledge and information. This is a clear misdirection of Law;itsfindings and consequently thewholeJudgment istainted. It cannot survive. We would, therefore, set aside the Judgment and order a retrial byanother Bench. With regard tocosts,havingregardtothefactthatnocostswere 25 adjudged by the trial Court, the principle that costs in the rent cases do not necessarily follow the event, and the way learned counsel for the respondent-applicant conducted his case before us, we make no order asto costs. Appeal allowed. Retrial ordered. 16 30