Not any damage may terminate a lease

For a lease agreement to be terminated because of damage done to the property, the damage, must be considerable. This was held in Margaret Falzon et vs Joseph Bugeja et decided by the Rent Regulation Board on 6 October 2025. The board was presided by Magistrate Joseph Gatt.

The applicants explained that they own property in Mqabba. Previously it was owned by Michael Tonna, now deceased. The applicants inherited the property after Tonna’s death in 1994. Tonna had acquired the property by means of a deed of donation from his cousin Luigi Tonna. At this time, the defendant, Joseph Bugeja, was already occupying the property. However, the applicants claimed that the defendants breached the lease conditions and failed to pay rent since 1995. They also claimed that the defendant used the property differently from what it was intended and the property is in a very bad state. The applicants asked the board to evict the defendants.

The defendants rebutted these claims, stating that the applicants were not the owners of this property. The owner should be John Mifsud. The defendants also claimed that they always paid their rent and there was no change of use of the property.

Margaret Falzon, testified that the property was meant to be the residence of the defendants but it was never so. Instead, it was used as a farm.

Louise Falzon testified that the property is in a dilapidated state, but works were then carried out without their authorisation.

Two architects, members of the board, held that the property was used as a farm. The property was structurally sound apart from one room.

John Mifsud, who intervened in these proceedings testified and explained that he purchased the property in 1994 and informed the tenants that it was now his property. He further explained that the defendants are his cousins, while Luigi Tonna was his uncle.

The defendant, Bugeja, also testified remembers that part of the property was walled off, because the property was divided into two separate properties. His father and he deposited the rent in court, since the rent was never demanded.

The board then tackled the legal points, starting with the first plea that the applicants were not the owners of the property and so had no juridical interest. This was held in Focal Maritime Services Company Limited vs Top Hat Company Limited decided by the Court of Appeal on 9 April 2008. The plaintiffs who file a case, must have a juridical interest. It is not the judgment that gives the plaintiff a right, but the judgment allows that the right be executed.

Under Maltese law the landlord does not need to be the owner of the property. The landlord may be usufructuary of the property. In fact, the defendants mentioned Michael Tonna as the landlord in the schedules filed in court for them to pay the rent. The board rejected the plea.

Regarding the claim that damage was caused to the property, the board noted that the law states that damage must be considerable. Caselaw allows a lease to continue even if the damage is irreparable. This was stated in Matteo Spiteri vs Leonardo Attard et decided by the Court of Appeal on 13 May 1963. Technical experts who visited the property held that the damage was not considerable and extensive. Therefore, the damages claim did not warrant an eviction.

With regard to the claim that there was a change of use of the property from a residence to a farm, the board said there must be evidence to show what was agreed when the lease commenced. The board commented that from the evidence produced there is serious doubt whether the property was rented as a residential property. The fact that the property on the rent book was described as a ‘house’ and not a ‘farm’ does not mean that the scope was to rent the property as their residence. In fact, the applicant testified that the tenant never lived in the property.  Other witnesses testified that the property was used to hold animals. The contract of donation to Michael Tonna refers to the property as a farm. Because of this doubt the board ruled that it was rejecting this claim as well.

Subsequently, the board moved to reject all the claims of the applicants.