The defendant must be involved in the transaction

For a Defendant to be the correct Defendant, it must be shown that prima facie he or she were involved in the transaction. This was held in a judgment delivered by Magistrate Noel Bartolo presiding over the Rent Regulation Board in C&F Enterprises Limited vs Aloisia Mifsud Grech. The judgment was delivered on 7 February 2025.

In its application, the company Applicant explained that it is the owner of a shop in Birkirkara, which was rented to the Defendant in September 2014. However, the Defendant failed to pay the rent in different periods in 2018 and 2019. The company also claimed that the Defendant caused damages to the premises. The claim amounted to over €11,000.

The Defendant held that the shop was in possession of Justin Haber and that she did not cause any damage to the property.

Magistrate Bartolo analysed the lease agreement between the two Parties and the evidence produced. The sirector of the company testified that since the Defendant’s husband was unwell, he agreed to discuss a new lease with an Italian individual. A draft lease agreement was sent; however, no reply was received. Then the Defendant put Justin Haber forward as a prospective tenant. The company director thought it was an introductory meeting, however, the Defendant gave Haber the keys of the catering establishment. A draft lease agreement was given to Haber; however, it was never signed. As such the rent was still due by the Defendant. Haber carried out works contrary to the lease agreement. In his cross-examination, the director held that subleasing was not allowed.

Justin Haber also testified saying that the Defendant proposed to rent the catering establishment to him. Although there was a draft agreement, this was not signed by the company. He admitted carrying out some works such as installing gypsum, cameras, and new air conditioning. Under cross-examination, Haber said he paid the rent in front of the director of the company. All works were done with the knowledge of the company.

An architect testified that the property was in a bad state of repair.

The Rent Regulation Board, first considered whether the Defendant had any legal relationship with the Applicant. The Board quoted from a judgment Grace Borg vs Edward Basile et dated 8 October 2019, that to be considered a legitimate party to the action it would be enough to show that on the face of it the party was part of the transaction thus establishing a judicial relationship.

In the case under review, the Defendant argued that the unpaid rent and damages pertained to the period when the place was in the possession of Justin Haber. This was known to the company and also had its approval.

However, the Board argued that there is no evidence the company approved that Justin Haber take over the property, nor is there evidence that Haber paid the company. The emails produced show that the Defendant was negotiating directly with Haber. The Defendant was taking legal action against Haber in order to take the property back. If the company had allowed Haber to take over the lease, the action would have been taken by the company and not the Defendant.

The Board observed that the Defendant was the tenant, although Justin Haber had possession of the property. In fact, the Defendant admitted that she was responsible for the unpaid rent. The Board held this was without prejudice to the Defendant taking action against Haber.

As to the amount owed to the Applicant company, the Board held that it was considering that the lease agreement was terminated on the day the keys were handed over. From the evidence it showed that the tenant paid extra amounts on water and electricity bills and this was deducted from the amount due. The Board accepted that damages were caused. The deposit was also reduced.

The Board ordered the Defendant to pay the Applicant Company €9,287.