Judge saves tenants from eviction by fixing premium on annual rent

The Constitutional Court will decide in the coming weeks whether the owners of a property they were unable to use as a result of the 1979 amendments to the rent laws, have suffered a breach of their human rights.

Last January, the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction found an unusual solution to the unfair situation whereby Maria Stella and John Azzopardi Vella who, having leased out their flat in Sliema’s Bisazza Street in 1977, could neither increase the rent nor refuse to renew the lease.

The 1979 amendment to the Housing Decontrol Ordinance protected tenants by turning temporary leases into permanent rental contracts, and restricting the increase in rent

The Azzopardi Vellas’ apartment was leased out on a five-year contract in 1977 to Henry and Judith Azzopardi for the princely sum of Lm50 monthly (€116.47). But when the rent laws changed, midway through the five-year agreement, the Azzopardi Vellas’ patrimonial rights were drastically changed.

The tenants continued to occupy the apartment, paying an increased rent at intervals even though this was still very low when compared to commercial rates at the time: €1,813 every year for the 15 years from 1982 to 1997, after which it went up to €2,381.63 annually, before climbing to the still-underwhelming figure of €3,402.53 in 2012 for the subsequent three years, after which it would be adjusted for inflation at three yearly intervals.

In his judgement in January, Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti found that there was a disproportionate bias with regard to the tenants’ rights and the owners’ right to enjoy their property. The fact that the law provided the option to repossess the property upon the death of the tenant, was of no comfort to the owner, the court said.

Judge Chetcuti dismissed the Attorney General’s and the tenants’ argument that they were advanced in age and in financial difficulty, saying it was not a valid reason to prevent the court from determining the alleged breach of the owner’s rights. 

He agreed with the tenants that there was no such thing as a guaranteed rental income, but the court said that with such prime real estate in the heart of Sliema, there was a good probability of finding a tenant who would pay a much higher rent.

Judge Chetcuti, reiterating recent pronouncements on the unconstitutionality of the 1979 amendments, said the legal balance was tilted excessively in favour of the tenant. “For this reason the court believes that the plaintiffs are suffering a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.”

The court felt that the Azzopardi Vellas should be compensated by the State, “which enacted the law and created this unfortunate and unbalanced situation”, but dismissed as “draconian” the plaintiffs’ request to evict the current tenants.

The judge pointed out that the law had been enacted to protect a vulnerable strata of society. “The State does not appear to have the financial or logistical means to intervene directly [and] replace this law with another legal or social framework to protect the not inconsiderable number of persons who would otherwise end up on the streets...”

Judge Chetcuti ordered that the State pay the Azzopardi Vellas €20,000 in compensation in damages and a further €3,000 annually – €2,000 by the Attorney General and €1,000 by the tenants – until the tenants cease to use the protection of the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance.

An appeal to this judgement, filed by the Attorney General, will be decided in the coming weeks.