(1988)1988October13 [KOURRIS,J.J INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION TSIKKINA NICOLOUDE, Applicant, v. 1.THEIMPROVEMENT BOARDOFKORNOS, 2.THE DISTRICTOFFICER LARNACA, ASCHAIRMAN OFTHEIMPROVEMENT BOARDOFKORNOS, Respondent. (CaseNo. 733/87). Streets andBuildings—Building permit. Renewal of—The Streets andBuildingsRegulation Law, Cap. 96, asamended,theproviso tosection5—No powerthereunder tomodify theconditionsoftheoriginalpermit—Ambitof thediscretion thereunder. Theapplicant failed tocomply with certain conditions,attached to the buildingpermit,which sheoriginallyobtained.Theconditionsrelated tothe cesspit. 5 When the applicant applied for the the renewal of her permit, the respondents decided torenew it,butwith modifications of itsconditionsrelatingtothecesspit. 10 Hencethisrecourse. Held,annulling thesubjudicedecision:
(1)Thecrux of thematter iswhether theprovisotos.5 of thelaw vestedpower intherespondents tomodify theiroriginal decision.
(2)Thediscretion of theappropriateauthority islimited toestablishing 15 (
- a)whether building works commenced; (
- b)whether the renewal 1854 '3 C.L.R. Nicoloude v. impr. Board Kornos ' conflicts withanybuildingregulationsinforce. ' ' '' " •· Subjudicedecisionannulled. M Costsagainstrespondents: '" . . . ·. ι ' . · . . · , ' , * . . .." - Casesreferredto: 'r Simon (No.2) v.TheMunicipalityofFamagusta
(1972)3C.L.R. 329; HadjiosifandOthers v.TheImprovementBoardofLakatamia
(1985)3 C.L.R. 171; ' Kitsisv. TheDistrictOfficerofPaphos
(1987)3 C.L.R.
- L Recourse. , I I ' • 't I ·. 1 Recourse against thedecision of therespondents tomodify a termof the building permitissuedto applicant on'31.3.
- D. Papachrysostomou, fortheapplicant. • Ά. Koukounis, for respondent No.
- Cur. adv.vult. KOURRIS'J. read the'following judgment. By thepresentre course, applicant challenges thedecision of respondent 1dated 13.7.1987,whereby they modified atermof thebuilding permit. - Atthehearingof thisrecourse applicantwithdrew therecourse against respondent 2,which was dismissed. '\ v •' v * > I I The facts which gave rise tothis recourse sh'ortly,are as fol lows: * ''"' The applicant is theowner of abuilding plot,under plotNo. 196 sheet/plan 39/56within thevillage of Kornos,intheDistrict of Lamaca'and on24.9.1983shesumbittedan application to the 1855 Kourris J. Nicoloude v. Impr. Board Kornos
(1988)appropriate authority, which inthepresentcaseistheImprovementBoard of Kornos,for abuilding for theerection uponher propertyofaflat andtwoshopsonthegroundfloor andoneflat onthefirst storey.On31.3.1984abuildingpermitwasissuedto herunderNo.356towhichanumberofsanitaryconditionswere 5 attached.TheconditionsrelevanttothisrecourseareNos.3&
- ByvirtueofconditionNo.3thecesspithadtobeconstructedina placeindicatedbytheappropriateauthorityinordernottoendangerthefoundations orthewallsofanyotherbuilding.Condition 7 provided that thesanitaryinstallations hadto beinspected by ,Q theHealthInspectorbefore theywerecovered. Theapplicantsstarteddiggingthecesspitwithoutcallingupon theappropriateauthoritytovisitherplotandindicatetoherwhere toconstructthecesspitinaccordancewithcondition3ofthesanitary conditions attached to thebuilding permit, whereupon her ,r neighbour, acertain Maria Evagorou, whose housewasnextto thebuilding plotof theapplicant,complained totheapprorpiate authoritythatthecesspitmightendangerthewallsofherhouse. As a result of this complaint, Senior Health Inspector 1st Grade,AndreasPavlou, and Health Inspector, 2nd Grade,Pav- 2 n losPavlides,visited theplotinquestion andtheyfound thatthe cesspitwasabout3ft. from thesurroundingwallofthehouseof MariaEvagorou,andtheyrealizedthatthecesspitmightendanger thewallsof thehouseoftheneighbourin asmuchasthehouse wasbuiltonaplotwhichwaslowerthanthebuildingplotofthe applicant. They indicated tothedaughter and son-in-law of the applicantwhowerethereeithertoconstructawatertighttank(idatostegisdexameni)orfill inthecesspitanddigitinanotherplace andforthispurposethey,indicatedaplaceundertheupperstorey ofthehouseoftheapplicant.Itshouldbenotedthatatthispoint 30 theapplicantaccordingtothearchitecturalplans,intendedtobuild thetwoshops.Further,thetwoHealthInspectorsnoticedthatthe wallofthecesspitwasnotcementedupto1 metrefromitstop. Theappropriate authority addressed a letter to the applicant dated 1stDecember, 1984,drawing herattention to thecontra- 35 1856 3C.L.R. Nicoloudev.Impr.Board Kornos Kourris J. ventionofthesanitaryconditions(seeRed36ofexhibit3which isthefileinrespectofbuildingpermit536/83).Thentherespondentauthoritypreparedasummaryofthefacts givingrisetothe ' contraventionofthesanitaryconditionstotheeffect thattheappli5 cant hasbeenin breachof conditions 3'& 7,andtheyinstructed counsel to bringcharges against theapplicant. Forreasonsunknowntome,counselbroughta'chargeagainsttheapplicantbefore the District Court of Larnaca, under case No. 3653/85, which is exhibit 1,towhich she pleaded guilty, and it appears , ft from exhibit 1Awhichisacertified copyoftherecord,thatwhen. counselfortherespondentauthorityrelatedthefactstotheCourt, he stated that accused, theapplicant in thepresent application, failed tocomplywithcondition7ofthesanitaryconditionstothe effect thatthecesspitwascoveredwithoutinforming theauthori-, tiestoinspectitwho,uponinspectionfound thatthecesspitwas notcemented upto 1 metrefrom'its opening.TheDistrictCourt orderedtheapplicanttofillinthecesspitwithin2monthsunless she had complied, in the meantime, with therelevant sanitary condition.Theapplicantcompliedwithcondition7andaddressed a letter to this effect to the respondent which is red 52 dated 20 28.12.1985of exhibit
- ItshouldbenotedthatwhenthetwoHealthInspectorsvisited theplotinquestionandfound outaboutthecontravention ofthe sanitary conditions withregard tothecesspit, thehouseonthe 25 first storeywasalmostcompleted. '" " J' * ™ 35 Byletterdated23,5.1987 (red'60"of exhibit 3),applicantappliedfortherenewalofthebuildingpermitastheconstructionof allthepremiseswasnotcompletedandtherespondentauthority consideredthematteranddecidedtomodify thetermoftheoriginalpermitsothatthecesspitbeconvertedintoawatertighttank, (idatostegis dexameni);or'to befilled in and'anewcesspit be constructed under the first storey house - which is the placewheretheshopsweretobeconstructed-anclitswallstobecoveredwithconcreteupto3meters.(Red64ofexh. 3). Applicant refused to comply and by letter dated 27.9.1987, 1857f Kourris J. Nicoloude v. Impr. Board Kornos
(1988)written by her counsel (seered 67of exhibit 3),invited therespondents towithdraw that term,andastheyrefused,theapplicantfiled thepresent recourse. Itappearsfrom theabovesummaryof thefacts thatin effect therespondentssoughttomodify thetermsoftheoriginal build- 5 ingpermitintheexerciseofthepowersgiventothembytheprovisotos.5of theStreetsandBuildingsRegulationLaw,Cap. 96. The crux of the matter is whether theproviso to s.5 of thelaw vested powerinthem tomodify theiroriginal decision.Theanswerisinthenegativebecausetheprovisotos.5doesnotconfer JQ powerontheappropriateauthoritytomodify thetermsofthepermit.Theambitof theprovisotos.5 wasexpounded in thecases ofNinaSiman (No.2) v.TheMunicipalityofFamagusta
(1972)3 C.L.R. 329,HadjiosifandOthers v.TheImprovement Board fo Lakatamia
(1985)3C.L.R. 171,andKitsisv. TheDistrictOf- 1 5 ficer ofPaphos
(1987)3C.L.R. 642. Section5of Cap.96readsasfollows: "5.Apermitshallbevalidforoneyearfromthedateofthe issuethereof: Provided thatif theworkorothermatterisnotcompleted 20 withinthatperiodthepermitshallberenewableatanysubsequenttimeifnotconflicting withanyregulationsinforceatthe timeof suchrenewal,upon paymentofthefeeprescribed for theoriginalpermitorof£2,whicheveristheless.Thepermit sorenewed shallbevalidforoneyearfrom thedateofrenew- 25 al." Itwasemphasizedintheabovementionedcasesthatthediscretion of the appropriate authority is limited to establishing (a) whetherbuildingworkscommenced;and(b)whethertherenewal conflicts withanybuildingregulationsinforce. Itisobviousthattherespondentauthority'sdecisiontomodify the terms of the original building permit exceeded as well as 1858 30 3 C.L.R. Nicoloude v. Impr. Board Kornos Kourris J. abused thepowers given tothemby therelevant provisions of the law. As thebuilding works commenced and were notcompleted at thetimethebuilding permitexpired, therespondent authorityhad 5 to renew the building permit with the same terms unless there newal conflicted with thebuilding regulations in force. The fact . , thattheapplicant did notcomply with condition3of the Sanitary Conditionsdid notauthorise therespondent authority toimpose a modified sanitary conditionuponrenewal of thebuilding permit. ΙΟ There may be otherremedies against the applicant but certainly notmodification of the sanitary conditions. , 15 * * * ' Λ, ' · In theresult, thesubjudice decision is annulled and declared, pursuant to Article 146.4(b), to be void and of no effect what soever. Intheexercise of my discretion Iordertherespondents to pay the costs of the applicant which are to be assessed by the Registrar. -J . • ' • ' ' Sub judice decision annulledwithcosts. j I 'v / 1859