(1988)1988June 15 (A LOIZOU Ρ SAWIDES &KOURRIS JJ ) IRINISOCRATOUS Appellant-Applicant, ν ANDREASECONOMOU, Respondent - Defendant (CivilAppeal No 7385) Appeal — Findings of fact — Interference by Appellate Court — Principlesapplicable Rent Control—The Rent Control Law 23/83, section ll(l)(f)~ Premises reasonably required bylandlordfor occupation The appellant (applicant)prayed undersection ll(l)(f)ofLaw23/ 5 83 foranorderfor therecovery ofpossession of herhouse Theclaim was dismissed The sole issue in this appeal was whether the trial court erred in concluding that the house was not reasonably required by the appellant for occupation This conclusion was reached because the tnal court was not satisfied whether the 10 appellantandherhusband intendedtoliveinCyprus ormthe United Statesof America Held, allowing the appeal An appellate court will normally not interfere with findings of fact of atnal courtunless such findings are manifestly wrong or not warranted by the evidence before it Itwas 15 not warranted by the evidence before itthatthe appellant and her husband did notintend to live in Cyprus Appeal allowed Order for eviction issued Stay of execution for 4 months. No 2 0 order as to costs Cases referred to Yiannopoullos ν Theodoulou
(1979)1 C LR 215, 376 1CL.R. Socratouav.Economou Andreouv.Christodoulou
(1978)1 C.L.R. 192; Antoniades v.Panteli
(1978)1 C.L.R. 58; Polycarpou v.Polycarpou
(1982)1C.L.R. 182; Papadopoulos v.Stavrou
(1982)1 C.L.R. 321; 5 Epiphaniou v.HjiGeorghiou
(1982)1C.L.R.609: Kyriacou v.Mata
(1982)1 C.L.R.932. Appeal. Appeal by applicant against the judgment of the RentControl Court Nicosia dated the 29th April, 1987 (Appl. No. E. 50/86) 10 whereby her application for an orderof recovery of possession of . a house situated atAy. Dhometioswas dismissed. S. Spyridakis, for theappellant. G. Papatheodorou, for the respondent. Cur adv. vuli 15 A. LOIZOU, P.:Thejudgment of the Courtwillbe delivered by Mr. Justice Kourris. KOURRIS,J.:Thisisanappeal against thejudgment ofthe Rent Trubunal of Nicosia by which it dismissed the applicants/ appellants claim for an order for trie recovery of possession of a 20 house situated at No. 5 Souliou Street, Ayios Dhometios,under the provisions of s.ll(l)(
- f)of the Rent Control Law 1983 (Law 23/83). The appellant is the owner of a house situated atNo. 5 Souliou Street, Ayios Dhometios, and the respondent is the statutory 25 tenantof the said premises. On 24.2.1986, the appellant filed an application intheRentTribunal of Nicosiaclaiming possession of her house pursuant to the provisions of s.ll(l)(
- f)of the Rent Control Law, 1983, but the RentTribunal, after hearing the case. dismissed theappellantsclaim for possession of the said premises. 30 Itis pertinent at this stage to set out the provisions of s.ll(l)(
- f)which reads as follows: «(στ) εις περίπτωσιν κ α θ ' ην η κατοικία απαιτείται λογικώς προς κατοχήν υπό τ ο υ ιδιοκτήτου, της 377 Kourrls J. Socratonsv.Economoa
(1988)συζύγου τ ο υ , τ ο υ υιού τ ο υ , της θυγατρός τ ο υ , ή οιουδήποτε εκ τ ω ν εξαρτωμένων γονέων τ ο υ , και τ ο Δικαοτήριον θεωρεί λογικήν την έκδοσιν τοιαύτης αποφάσεως ή τ ο ι ο ύ τ ο υ διατάγματος: Νοείται ότιουδεμία απόφασις καιουδέν διάταγμα θα 5 εκδίδωνται δυνάμει της π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ο υ αυτής, εάν το Δικαοτήριον πεισθή ότι, λαμβανομένων υπ' όψινόλων των περιστάστεων της υποθέσεως, θα επροξενείτο μεγαλύτερα τ α λ α ι π ω ρ ί α διά της εκδόσεως τ ο υ διατάγματος ή τ η ς αποφάσεως π α ρ ά διά της 10 αρνήσεως εκδόσεως τ ο ύ τ ο υ . Διά τους σκοπούς της π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ο υ αυτής ο όρος 'περιστάσεις της υποθέσεως' περιλαμβάνει, μεταξύ άλλων,τ ο κ α τ ά πόσον οενοικιαστής είναι εκτοπισθείςή παθών, ως οι όροι ούτοι καθορίζονται εις τ ο Μέρος V 15 τ ο υ παρόντος Νόμου, τ ο κ α τ ά πόσον υπάρχει διαθέσιμον έτερον ανάλογον και με λογικόν ενοίκιον μέρος στεγάσεως διάτον ιδιοκτήτην ήτον ενοικιαστήν, και τ ο κατά πόσον ο ιδιοκτήτης ηγόρασε τ οακίνητον μετά την ημερομηνίαν καθ'ην ετέθη εν ισχύι ο παρών 20 Νόμος προςτ ο ν σκοπόν αποκτήσεως κατοχής δυνάμει των διατάξεων τηςπαρούσης παραγράφου.» «(f). Where a dwellinghouse isreasonablyrequiredby the landlord, his spouse, his son, his daughter or any of his dependant parents, and the Court considers itreasonable to give such ajudgment or make such an order. 25 Provided thatnojudgment or ordershall be given ormade under this paragraph, if the Court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order or judgment than by 30 refusing togrant it. For the purposes of this paragraph the expression circumstances of the case shall include, interalia, whether the tenant is displaced or stricken, as these terms are interpretedin PartVof thisLaw, whetherotheraccomodationisavailableata 35 reasonable rent for the landlord or the tenantand whether the landlord purchased the premises after the date of the coming into operation of this Law for the purpose of gaining possession under this paragraph». 378 1 CL.R. Socratoas v.Economoa KourrisJ. The facts shortly arethese:Theappellant isapermanentpublic officer since 1969 in the post of Labour Officer in the Ministry of Labour and Social Insuranceand her husband was employed by the Bank of Cyprus andhe isnow retired.Therespondent,tenant 5 of the house, is employed by the Organization of Agricultural Insuranceandhiswifeisapublicofficer; theyhave threechildren. In 1984, the appellant and her husband went to the United States of America. Herhusband intended to work there and she obtained2years'leave of absencewithoutpay todecidewhether \ο theywould settle intheUnited States.But,after 13monthsstayin the United States of America, her husband became ill and they cameback toCyprus tosettle permanently. When theycameback she resumed herwork atthe Ministry. The trial Judge, after analysing the meaning and' effect of 15 s.ll(l)(i) of the Law, dismissed appellant's claim on the ground thathewas notsatisfied thatshe reasonably requiredherhouse for heroccupation because hewas notsatisfied whethertheappellant and herhusband intendedtoliveinCyprus orinthe UnitedStates of America. 20 25 30 35 The trialJudge then proceeded to examine the otherrequire ments of therelevant section of the Law, in case he was reversed on appeal. On the issue of ha.d^hip, he was not satisfied .that greater hardshipwould be caused tothetenantby grantingtheorderthan by refusing togrant same. As regards thequestion whether itwas reasonable thatanorder of eviction should be given, he answered it in the'affirmative. Therefore, the sole issue before us is whether the trial Judge was coned when he concluded that he was not satisfied that the appellant reasonably required her house for occupation by her because he was not satisfiedwhethershe intendedtoliveinCyprus or inthe United States of America. On this issue, the trial Judge referred to the case of Yiannopoullos v. Theodoulou
(1979)1 C.L.R. 215; Andreou v. Christodoulou
(1978)1C.L.R. 192;Antoniades v.Panteli,
(1978)1 C.L.R. 58. Healso referred to certain English cases and also to a passage from Woodfall onLandlord and Tenant,27th edn. Counsel for the appellant in arguing this appeal before us. 379 Kottni· J. Socratous v.Economoa
(1988)submitted that the conclusion of the trial Judge is against the evidence. It is a well-established practice that an appellate Court will normally not interfere with findings of fact of a trial Court unless such findings are manifestly wrong or not warranted by the 5 evidence before it. (See, inter alia, Polycarpou v. Polycarpou
(1982)1 C.L.R. 182; Papadopoullos v. Stavrou
(1982)1 C.L.R." 321; Epiphaniou v. Hjigeorghiou
(1982)1 C.L.R. 609; and Kyriacou v.Mata,
(1982)1C.L.R. 932.) Having regard to the evidence before the Rent Tribunal, the 10 conclusion of the trialJudge that hewasnot satisfied whether the appellant intended to live in Cyprus or in the United States of America,iscontrarytotheevidencebefore it.Itwasnot warranted by the evidence before it that the appellant and her husband did not intend to live inCyprus. The appellant isa permanent public 15 officer and she firmly stated, both in her evidence in chief and in her cross-examination that she intended to live permanently in Cyprus. The evidence of her husband istothesame effect. Inthe light of the above, we areof theviewthatthe conclusion reached by the Rent Tribunal isvulnerable and cannot be relied 20 upon. Bearing in mind the legal principles enunciated hereinabove, in the circumstances of thiscase,we have arrived at the conclusion thattheintention oftheappellantand her husband istoresidepermanently inCyprusandinthecircumstancesweare satisfied thatshereasonably requiresherhouse forheroccupation •-5 and weissueanorderofevictionagainsttherespondentwhoisthe tenant of the said premises. Wepropose,however, togivetimeto the respondent to comply with the said order by finding other accommodation and we suspend the order of eviction for 4 months from today. 30 Appeal allowed, but with no order for costs. Appeal allowed with no orderas to costs. 380