1C.L.R. 1989Ju!y21 ,SAWIDFS KOURRIS BOYADJ1S JJ > ANASTASIOS MICHAELIDES, Appellant-Respondent, ν THE ABBOT KYKKO MONASTERY NIKIFOROS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE HOLY MONASTERY OF KYKKO Respon dents-Applicants (CivilAppealNo 7372) 5 10 15 Rent Control — Eviction — The Rent Control Law 1983 (Law 23/83) section ll(l)(h)(m) — Owner should prove not only that the premises are reasonably required for substantial and radical alterations, but,also, thatthe changeswill entail theradical and total alteration of the building and aim at the development of the property — No comprehensive definition possible — The matter is one of degree Rent Control — Evidence — Admitting m evidence copy of the notice given that the premisesare reasonably required by the landlord for substantial and radical alterations, notwithstanding that notice to produce the onginal had not been given — As the receipt of the notice was admitted by the answer to the application and there was not a dispute thatit had been received, the failure togive notice was amere technicality, inasmuch as theRent Control Courtis not bound by the Law of Evidence This is an appeal against an eviction order issued under section ll(l)(h)(iu} of Law 23/83 The premises in question were a house which thelandlordsintendedtochange into arestaurant andapubat a considerable costs The Court upheld the eviction 70 Appeal dismissed No order asto costs Cases referred to LamarcoLtd ν Kranos
(1987)1C L R 336, Poyiatzis ν Pilavahs and Another
(1988)1C L R 411 383 Michaelide»,v.Abbot ofKykko
(1989)Appeal. Appeal by respondentagainst thejudgment of theRentControl Court of Nicosia dated the31st March,1987 (Appl No E136/86) granting an order for therecovery of possession of ahouse atNo 6 Solon Str Nicosia ^ G Papatheodorou, for the appellant C Velans for the respondents Cur adv vult SAWIDES J The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr Justice A Koums 10 KOURRISJ Thisisanappeal against thejudgment of theRent Tnbunal of Nicosia granting an order for the recovery of possession of a house situateatNo 6SolonStreet,Nicosia,under the provisions of Section ll(l)(h)(
- ui)The respondents are the owners of a house situate at No 6 15 SolonStreet,Nicosia,andtheappellantwas thestatutorytenantat ^monthly rentof £15On 15 5 1986 the respondents filed an application intheRent Tnbunal of Nicosia, claiming possession of the house pursuant to the provisions of Section ll(l)(h)(
- m)20 It is pertinent, at this stage, to set out the provisions of Section U(l)(h)(
- ni)of the Rent Control Law 1983, (Law 23/83) which reads as follows «11
(1)Ουδεμία αττόφασις και ουδέν διάταγμα εκδίδεται δια την ανάκτησιν της κατοχής οιασδήποτε 25 κατοικίας η καταστήματος, δια το οποίο ισχύει ο παρών νόμος, ή δια την εκ τούτου εξωσιν θεσμίου ενοικιαστού, πλην των ακολούθων περιπτώσεων:(η) Ειςην περίπτωσιν και εάντ ο ακίνητον απαιτείται λογικώς υπό τ ο υ ιδιοκτήτου. (ui) Δια ουσιαστικός και ριζικός αλλαγάς συνεπαγόμενος την ριζικήν και ολικήν μετατροπήν τ ο ύ τ ο υ διασκοπούςαξιοποιήσεως του». 384 ^" 1 C.L.R. Michaelidesv. Abbotof Kykko KourrisJ. To justify an order under Section ll(l)(h)(iii), the owner is burdened to prove not only that the premises are reasonably required for substantial and radical alterations but also, the changes must entail the radical and the total alteration of the 5 building and must aim at the development of the property (Lamarco Ltd. v. Kranos
(1987)1 C.L.R. 336 and, Poyiatzis v. Pilavakisand Another,
(1988)1C.L.R.411. We think that it is impossible to give an accurate and comprehensive definition of the alterations required to bring 10 about thedesiredorderunder Section 1l(l)(h)(iii).Thequestionis one ofdegree depending ofthe factsofaparticularcase (Poyiatzis v.Pilavakisand Another (supra). The respondents produced before the Rent Tribunal the architectural planswhichprovideforsuchalterationsastoturn the 15 house inquestion intoa restaurant and pub. PanayiotisHadjidemetriou, awitnesscalledbytherespondents, who is a technical assistant at the architectural office of I. &A. Philippou, gave in detail the alterations proposed to be made in the house and also the cost of these alterations, which would 20 amount to about £40,000.-. Noexpertwitnesswascalled on behalf ofthe appellant. The Rent Tribunal found that, on the evidence before it, the premises were reasonably required for substantial and radical alterations and that the changes would entail the radical and the 25 total alteration of the building, which aim at the development of the property and, consequently, granted an order for recoveryof possession. The appellant's main grounds are that the Rent Tribunal went wrong in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support an 30 order und^r Section ll(l)(h)(iii) and that, the Rent Tribunal was wrong to admit in evidence a copy of the letter given by the respondents to the appellant pursuant to the said Section of the Law although, the respondents failed to serve on the appellant a nr.iice to produce the original letter under the Civil Procedure 35 Xules. 385 KourrtsJ. Michaelides v. Abbotof Kykko
(1989)We have gone through the evidence produced by the redpondents before theRentTribunal and we havebeen satisfied thatthere wasoverwhelmingevidencebeforetheRentTribunalto reach the conclusion that the premises were reasonably required for substantial and radical alterations and that, the changes entailed the radical and the total alteration of the building, which aimed atthe development of theproperty, and consequently, this ground of appeal fails. 5 Now with regard to the second ground of appeal to the effect that the respondents failed to give notice to the appellant to 10 produce the original letter.The respondentsintheirapplication to the Rent Tribunal stated therein that they addressed a letter pursuant to the Law to the appellant and the appellant in his defence admits that he received the said letter. Furthermore, therewasoralevidencebefore theTribunal thatanotice,pursuant 15 to the Law, has been givento the appellant. Also,ithas not been disputed during the hearing and, ithas not been disputed before us, that the appellant did receive the letter or, that the letter was not inaccordance with the Law. Wethinkthat, inthe circumstancesofthiscase,thefailure ofthe 20 respondents to give a notice toproduce the original letter, under the Civil Procedure Rules, was a mere technicality inasmuch as there isprovision in the Rent Control Law 1983 under Section 5 that theTribunal isnot bound bythe Lawof Evidence inforce for the time being. We think that this technicality did not affect the 25 case before the RentTribunal and itcannot affect the outcome of this appeal. Forthese reasons the appeal failsbut with no order forcosts. Appeal dismissed. No orderastocosts. 30 386