No future for illegal restaurant near ancient Hagar Qim temples

A judgment by the Superior Court of Appeal has sounded the death knell for a restaurant that had been built illegally near the Hagar Qim Temples over a decade ago.

In a case dating back to 2005, the Magri siblings, heirs of Giuseppa Magri, filed a case against Jane Cini saying their predecessor had leased to the defendant a field on the limits of Qrendi, near Hagar Qim and some overlying structures.

Over the years, the defendant lessee had made extensive structural alterations to the property, going so far as to open a restaurant there, without the consent of the mother of the plaintiff or her children.

The Magris’ lawyer Michael Tanti Dougall had filed an application in 2005, asking the courts to order the land be returned to them.

The defendant, Cini, argued that the works carried out had not been extensive in nature and in any case had been performed with the consent of the owner of the time, Giuseppa Magri.

In their reply, filed by lawyer Michael Sciriha, they argued that the lease was protected by the Reletting of Urban Property Ordinance, a legal relic of the pre-1995 rent reform laws.

The defendants also contested the plaintiff’s heirdom and denied making unauthorised structural alterations.

In 2012, the First Hall of the Civil Court had found for the plaintiff and ordered the eviction of the defendant within 3 months. The judge had noted that a court expert reported a number of structural alterations, including the construction of stores, garage dog sheds, toilets, tents with metal frames and four internal apertures had been carried out.

The new constructions had been carried out using bricks and concrete roofing that stood in stark contrast with the rest of the original building, which had been built using traditional construction materials and techniques.

In its judgment, the Superior Court of Appeal, comprising Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, judge Tonio Mallia and judge Joseph Azzopardi, noted that case law had established that a tenant had a right to carry out structural alterations to a property he was leasing without the permission of the landlord, as long as these do not change the purpose of the property, are beneficial to the lessor and can be removed at the end of the lease.

“Here we do not have a simple case of the movement of a bar, as the defendant is alleging, “ said the court, pointing out that the construction, as well as a number of small alterations to the property had changed the very nature of the property.

The fact that Giuseppa Magri would often go to the place to have a drink or a coffee did not necessarily imply that she was happy with the works or had given them her blessing, it said.

Magri died before the case was decided but both sides had said they knew what her intentions had been, observed the judges. Her children had testified that she had never given permission whilst the defendants testified that she would frequent the restaurant and had “never said anything about the works.”

This was not enough to sway the appeals court, however, which ruled that “in the light of this evidence this court, like the first court before it, does not feel that a clear proof of the alleged permission and so the defendants’ appeal cannot be upheld.”

The Court of Appeal gave Cini three months to vacate the premises, after which she would be forcibly evicted.