Before depositing rent in court, a tenant must first offer payment

A deposit of rent in court is only valid if the tenant first offers payment to the owner. If payment is rejected then the tenant may deposit the rent in court. This was held in a judgment in Anna Zerafa et v Amedeo Scerri before the Rent Regulation Board, presided by Magistrate Joseph Gatt. The judgment was delivered on 15 November 2024.

The Applicants filed an application explaining that they are owners of a property in Hamrun and claimed that the tenant, the Defendant, carried out unauthorised structural works. They also claimed that he did not pay rent and therefore, asked the Board to terminate the lease, order his eviction and pay the outstanding rent of €396.

The Defendant claimed the changes were authorised by the previous owner.

One of the Applicants explained under oath that the Defendant rents this property and the property next door. She explained that she visited the property in 2010 and saw the door was in place, but in 2015, the door was no longer there and was converted into a window. From then onwards they did not accept the rent. Under cross-examination, she said her now deceased aunt was managing the property. She further explained that the door was actually there but a window had been placed behind it. The Defendant’s wife explained this was done for medical and safety reasons.

The Defendant’s wife also testified and said that the property, which was in fact a room, was rented in order to increase the floor space of their adjacent house. The door was converted into a window, because the room was converted into a bedroom.

The Defendant also testified saying that the Applicant’s aunt knew the reason why the property was rented. The room was used as a bedroom for 55 years.

The Board held that the law dictates that the tenant is bound to use the rented property diligently as a bonus pater familias. The legal principle is that no changes to the structure of the property may be carried out without the consent of the owners, unless it is necessary and needed for the tenant to enjoy the rented property. The Courts have watered down the strict prohibition of structural changes as dictated by the Civil Code, if it is shown that changes are partial, not of significant importance and that the use will remain the same.

In this case the structural changes were partial and could be reversed at the end of the lease. The property remained a residential property and changes were necessary for the tenants. Furthermore, the Board held that these changes were carried out decades ago and the owners did not object.

As to the arrears of rent, the Board held that the tenant is bound to pay the rent punctually as stipulated in the Civil Code. The fact that rent is not paid does not mean the lease is automatically terminated.

The Applicants did not call upon the Defendant to pay the arrears in rent by a judicial act. In 2015, the rent was refused and therefore, there is no reason for the lease to be terminated.

The evidence showed that the lease is a residential lease which started before 1989, although there is no written agreement.  The rent was €90 per year and was accepted until 2015 and the Defendant deposited the rent in court from 2019 onwards.

The Board held that for a tenant to affect a valid payment in court, they should first offer the rent to the owner. If this is not proved then payment would not have been affected, even though rent would have been deposited in court.

The Tribunal ruled that according to the law, the rent should be €555. The Board calculated that the amount due was €270 and not €396.

The Board turned down the request to terminate the lease and ordered the Defendant to pay €270.