clr/1989/1989_1_495.pdf

(1)oftheRentControlLaw 1983 (Law23/83)tfieonly Court thatpossesses jurisdiction to determinesuchaquestion. 15 In 1960 a contract of lease was entered into between Frixos Michaelides,nowdeceased,ontheonepart,andtherespondent, on theotherpart,bywhichabuildingsitebelongingtothefirstpartywas let tothesecond at£6.-perannum.Onthisproperty,ofwhich the said deceased was the registered owner, therespondent built a wooden shed-described bytherespondentasahouse - inwhichhe andhiswifehavebeenresidingsince. 20 FrixosMichaelidesobtainedin1967 anorderof ejectmentonthe ground thatthe renthad notbeen paid. FrixosMichaelides diedin 1969.Thefirstapplicantistheadministratrixofhisestate.Thesecond applicant ishisson,inwhose namethe property wasregistered in 1972. 10 In 1975 the applicants obtained awritofpossession. Sincethen therespondentrepeatedly applied forstayofexe itionoftheorder of ejectment or for annulment of the writ. W <!neach of such application cameupforhearingrespondentwithdrewit. 495 InreMichaelidou

(1989)FinallyandaftertheenactmentoftheRentControlLaw,1983the RespondentappliedtotheRentControlCourtforadeclarationthat he was a statutory tenant of the said property. The basis of this application is an allegation that by a new oral agreement the applicantsagreedtoleasethepropertytotherespondent. 5 Asa result the applicants{respondentsbefore the RentControl Court) filed thisapplication for prohibition, on the ground thatthe RentControlhadnojurisdictiontodealwiththematter. Held,dismissingtheapplication:Thewordsofsection

(4)1ofLaw 23/83 «for the purpose of determining the disputes 10 referred tothemconcerninganymatterincludingeveryincidentalor supplementary matter»coverthe caseoftherespondent and,thus, theCourtwhichhastodecidethematteristheRentControlCourt. Applicationdismissed. No orderastocosts. 15 Application. Application for the issue of an order of prohibition restraining the Rent Control Court from hearingApplication No. E.55/84, E.Markidou (Mrs,), for theapplicants. Ch. Loizou, for the respondents. 20 Cur.adv. vuh. DEMETRIADES J. read the following ruling. This is an application for the issue of anorder of prohibition restraining the RentControl Court from hearingApplication No.E55/84filedin that Court by George Havadjia, the respondent in these 25 proceedings, and bywhich heclaims: «A. A judgment and/or declaration of the Court that the applicant (respondent inthepresentproceedings) isastatutorytenant of plotNo.A532 471PLOTBLOCKAofan extent of 1evlek 2950 sq. ft. inAylendjia. 30 B. A judgment and/or declaration of the Court that the respondents are not entitled to recovery of possession of the aforesaid building plot. C. A judgment of the Court declaring the order for the recovery of possession issued in Action No.4550/67 by the 35 District Court of Nicosia on 16.2.81 as void and non executable. 496 1C.L.R. InreMichaelidou DemetriadesJ. D. Any other remedy which the Court mayfindjust and reasonableinthecircumstances. E.Costs.» The facts on which the applicants rely in support of these 5 proceedingsappearinanaffidavit swornbythesecondapplicant datedthe 3rdJuly,1984,andtheyareinbriefthefollowing: In 1960 a contract of lease was entered into between Frixos Michaelides,nowdeceased,ontheonepart,andthe respondent, on the other part, bywhich abuilding sitebelongingtothe first 10 partywas lettothesecondat£6.-perannum.Onthisproperty,of whichthesaiddeceasedwastheregisteredowner,therespondent builtawoodenshed-describedbytherespondentasahouse-in whichheandhiswifehavebeenresidingsince. The said Frixos Michaelides died in 1969 and letters of 15 administrationofhisestateweregrantedto hiswifewhoisthe first applicantintheseproceedings. The property in question, which is described as plot 471of Block A of Aylendjia, registration No. A532, was, in 1972, transferred andregistered intothename ofthesecond applicant 20 whoisthesonofthedeceased. In1967,astheagreedmonthlyrentwas notpaid,thedeceased filed anactionagainsttherespondentandonthe29thDecember, 1967, heobtainedanorderbywhichthe respondentwasordered toevacuateanddelivertothedeceasedthevacantpossessionof 25 thepropertyonemonthafterserviceonhimofacertified copyof the order of the Court. Copy of this order was served on the respondentonthe30thApril,1975,andonthe 18th June,1975, the first applicant filed in the District Court of Nicosia an application bywhichsheprayed for theissueofawritofposses30 sionunderOrder43A. The saidapplicationwasgrantedandawrit of possession was issued but after the respondent promised to evacuatethepropertywithinareasonablytime,thefirstapplicant consentedtoastayofexecution. The applicantstooknofurtherstepsforthe executionofthesaid 35 order of ejectment as respondent was always promising to evacuatetheproperty. Accordingtotheaforesaid affidavit ofthesecondapplicant,the respondent,since1981, filedanumberofapplicationsforthestay oftheexecutionand/or annulment ofthewritofpossession,but 497 DemetriadesJ. Inre Michaelidou ^•ΛΟϊ none of these were heard by the Court as when each of these applications came up for hearing, he withdrew them.Sample of oneoftheseapplications isappendedtothepresentapplicationas exhibit D andisdated the6thDecember,

1. On the 20th February, 1984, the respondent filed in the Rent 5 ControlCourtanapplicationbywhich heprayed,amongstothers, for an interlocutory-injunction stayingtheexecution of thewritof possession issuedby theDistrictCourtofNicosia.Thisapplication wasalsowithdrawn onthedateitwas setdown forhearing.Copy of thisapplication andtheaffidavitfiledinsupportisappended to 10 themotionof the applicantsasexhibit Ά'. Itis the contention of the respondent, which is denied by the applicants,thatafter thesuspension oftheexecution oftheabove writ, it was agreed between the parties, upon payment by the respondent of all monies due as rents, that the tenancy should 15 continue from year to year on the same rent and that the respondent paid to the applicants, at different dates, the sum of £100.-towards future rents. In March, 1981, the applicants, after filing an ex parte application intheDistrictCourtof Nicosia, obtainedanewwritof 20 possession. InJuly, 1981, therespondent applied to theDistrict Courtof Nicosia claiming thesettingaside oftheeviction orderof 1967 and the annulment of the order for possession. This application was withdrawn inDecember, 1981, and a new one, similar to the first, was filed in March, 1982, which was again 25 withdrawn inDecember,
2. In December 1983, after the enactment of Law 23/83, the respondentfiled once again anew application (which isattached to the present proceedings as Appendix D') seeking the annulment and setting aside of the same order of 1967, on the 30 grounds, as these are set out fn the attached affidavit of the respondent, that he had become a statutory tenantand thatthe applicants were not entitled to an order of possession. This application was again withdrawn on the date it was fixed for hearing. 35 At thesame time,thatis atthetimetheaboveapplication was filed inthe DistrictCourt,theapplicantfiledinthe RentControl Court an application which he later withdrew but on the 20th February, 1984, hefiled Application No.E55/84,which isearlier inthisjudgment referred to. ® 498 1C.L.R. In re Michaelidou DemetriadesJ. In March 1984, the respondent again applied to the District Court of Nicosia, on an ex parte application, for a stay of the execution oftheorderfor recovery of possession of thepropertyin question and an order was made inhis favour tothis effect. 5 In answer to the Statement of Claim of the applicant in Application No.E55/84, thepresent applicants deniedmost ofthe allegations raised therein and raised thepreliminary issuethatthe RentControlCourtlacks jurisdiction toheartheapplicationonthe ground thatan orderfor therecovery of possession of theproperty 10 in question was issued by the District Court of Nicosia in Action No. 4550/
3. This answer was filed on the 18th April, 1984, and on the3rd July, 1984, the applicants filed Application No. 40/84 for leave to apply for an order of prohibition, which was granted. As a result, the present application was filed, which was 15 opposed by the respondent. By this application the applicants seek a prohibition order restraining thehearing of Application No. E55/84 by the Rent ControlCourtsitting in Nicosia. The question that poses for decision is whether, in the light of theallegations made by therespondent - applicant in Application 20 No. E55/84 filed in the Rent Control Court - that Court has jurisdiction totry the issuesraised before it. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Rent Control Court has nojurisdiction togrant any of the prayers sought by the respondent inhissaid application. Ontheotherhand, counsel for 25 the respondent submitted that as it is the respondent's allegation that a new tenancy was constituted between himself and the applicants, the respondent is a statutory tenant and that under section 4

(1)of the Rent Control Law (Law 23/83), the Courtthat has exclusive jurisdiction to try the issues is the Rent Control 30 Court. Section 4

(1)of Law 23/83 reads as follows: 35 «4.-0) Καθιδρύονται Δικαστήρια Ελέγχου Ενοικιάσεων ο αριθμός των οποίων δεν θα υττερβαίνη τα τρία επί σ κ ο π ώ επιλύσεως, μεθ' όλης της λογικής ταχύτητας, των ειςαυτά αναφερομένωνδ ι α φ ο ρ ώ ν τ ω ν αναφυομένων επί οιουδήποτε θέματος εγειρομένου κατά την εφαρμογήν του π α ρ ό ν τ ο ς Νόμου συμπεριλαμβανομένου π α ν τ ό ς π α ρ ε μ π ί π τ ο ν τ ο ς ή συμπληρωματικού θέματος». 499 DemetriadesJ.

(1989)Inre Michaelidou («4.-(l) Rent Control Courts are being established whose numbershallnorexceedthreeforthepurposeofdetermining with all reasonable speed, the disputes referred to them, concerningany matterraisedinthecourseoftheapplication of the present Law including every incidental or supplementarymatter».) 5 Astatutorytenantisdefined insection2oftheLawasatenant who,attheexpirationorterminationofthefirsttenancy,continues tooccupythepremisesand includesallstatutorytenantspriorto thedateofthecomingintooperation ofthelaw. 10 Therefore, what a Court of Law will have to decide in the present case iswhether, atthe materialtime,that ison the date ApplicationNo.E55/84wasfiled, therespondentwasastaturoty tenant. Coming nowto the question ofwhich courthasjurisdiction to 15 decidethisissue,Iam oftheviewthatthewordsofsection4

(1), and in particular the words «for the purpose of determining the disputes referred to them concerning any matter raisedinthecourseoftheapplicationofthepresentLawincluding every incidental or supplementary matter»coverthe case of the 20 respondentand,thus,theCourtwhichhastodecidethematteris theRentControlCourt.ItisfurthermyviewthattheDistrictCourt, inthe lightof theprovisionsofsection4

(1),hasnojurisdiction to trydisputesrelated totheoccupation ofpremisesbyatenant. In the result, this application fails and isdismissed but, in the 25 circumstances,1 makenoorderastocosts. Application dismissed with no order astocosts. 500