(1988)1988March 5 (DEMETRIADES.J) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE155
(4)OFTHECONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IOANNIS KOLOKOUDIASANDOTHERSFORLEAVETOAPPLYFORAN ORDEROFCERTIORATI, AND IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. E180/86 OF THE RENT CONTROLCOURTOFNICOSIA. (ApplicationNo. 151/87). Prerogative orders—Certioran—Leave to apply for—Principles applicable—Applicantshouldmakeoutaprimafaciecase. Thefactsofthiscaseappearsufficiently inthejudgmentoftheCourt. Leavetoapplyforan orderofcertiorarigranted. 5 Application. Application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash the judgment and/or order of the Rent Control Court of Nicosia in Application No. E. 180/86 dated the 28th August, 1987. E.Odysseos, for the applicants. Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADES J. read the following ruling. This is an application by which the applicants seek leave to apply for an order of certiorari for the removal from the Rent Control Courtof 15 NicosiatotheSupreme CourtoftheproceedingsinApplication E. 180/86before thatCourtandforthequashingand/orsettingaside of the judgment and/or order of that Court given in that application on the 28th August, 1987. 144 10 1 C.L.R. Inre Kolokoudias Demefcriades J. The grounds on which the applicants base theirapplication are that(
- a)the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the application before itinviewof itscontents, and 5 (b)the Courtacted on an error of law. According to the petition filed in Application E.180/86, the applicants alleged the following facts: (i)The applicants are the owners of the «LOUCOUDI HOTEL» situate at Kakopertia; 10 (ii)the respondents in that case were in possession of the said premises during the period between 1.5.65 - 30.4.68 as contractual tenants under a tenancy agreement dated the 21st May,1965,theyearlyrentbeingagreed at£400(sterlingpounds); (iii) after the expiration of the said tenancy agreement, the 15 tenants continued to possessthe premisesastenantsfrom year to year untilthe8th July, 1977; (iv)the tenantswere converted into statutory tenants under the provisions of the Rent Control Law 1975 (Law 36/75) and the Regulatory Administrative Act No 154/77, by which Kakopetria 20 wasdeclared asan area where the aforesaid lawwould apply; (
- v)during the period in which Law 36/75 continued to be in force, the tenantswere statutory tenants; and (vi)asfrom thedateonwhichthenewlaw,i.e.the RentControl Law 23/83, came into operation, the respondents ceased to be 25 statutory tenantsalthough they were such tenants byvirtue of the repealed Law 36/75, because lettings of hotels, according to the allegation of the applicants, do not fall within the meaning of the term «tenancy» as this is defined in section 2 of Law 23/83, although such tenancies were covered byLaw36/75. 30 Asa result ofthe facts setout inthe petition tothe Rent Control Court, counsel for the present applicants submitted to that Court that ithad no jurisdiction toentertain the application since- (
- a)the respondents (applicants in these proceedings) had ceased to be statutory tenants after the coming into force of law 35 23/83, (b)therewasno tenancy withinthemeaning ofsection 2ofLaw 23/83and, therefore, 145 DemetrladesJ.
(1988)InreKolokoudlw (c)the premisesare notcontrolled premisesbyvirtueofthesaid law. The Court refused to deal with the preliminary issue raised by counsel forthepresent applicants -respondentsinthe application before the Rent Control Court -as to itsjurisdiction. Counsel for 5 the respondents in that application then withdrew from the case, whereupon the Court proceeded in the absense of the respondents to hear the case on the merits and deliver its judgment. Asithasbeen repeatedly said,thisCourt ingranting orrefusing 10 an application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari, has to exercise a discietion and that what ithas to decide atthisstageis not whether the order.applied for should be issued but whether, on the material before it, there is a prima facie case made out sufficiently tojustifythegrantingofleavetotheapplicantstomove 15 the Court toissue the order of certiorari. Inthe lightof the contents ofthe affidavit filed insupport of the petition of the applicants for leave to apply for an order of certiorari and having carefully considered the arguments of counsel for theapplicantswhicharesetoutinhiswrittenaddress, 20 Iam satisfied thattheapplicantshavemadeaprimafacie arguable case for granting the application. In view of the above, I have come to the conclusion that the following order should be made:
(1)Theapplicantsshallbe granted leavetoapplyforanorderof 25 certiorari withinfifteen daysfrom today.Anyopposition toitmust be made and filed within twenty-one days thereafter.
(2)Thejudgmentand/or orderofthe RentControl Court given and/or made on the28th August, 1987,inApplication E.180/86, and any steps taken in execution of same, be stayed for fifteen 30 days as from today. If the applicants apply within the period hereinabove provided, or such extended time as the Court may order, for an order of certiorari,then the stayshall continue to be in operation until further order ofthe Court.
(3)Copy of thisorder to be served on the Registrarof the Rent 35 Control Court. Application granted. 146