Thousands could be evicted following Civil Court's judgement

A judgment of the Civil Court ruling the handing over of land through a perpetual emphyteusis violating the rights of the original owners could lead to thousands of families being evicted

Thousands of Maltese families could be evicted from their residences following a judgment by the Civil court ruling the handing over of land through a perpetual emphytusis (cens perpetwu) of the annual ground rent multiplied by six as violating the rights of the original land owners.

Under Article 12 of the Housing Decontrol Ordinance, any lease of up to 30 years contracted before 21 June 1979, can be turned into a rent and as a result, tenants living in houses on a temporary lease have retained the right to stay in these houses, and pay an annual rent equivalent to double the lease they paid.

In its decree, the Civil Court deemed the handing over of land as violating the rights of the original tenants and subsequently evicted five families from their residence in Paola because they were occupying the property "in an illegal manner".

Gianella Annati, Margerita and Emanuel Valletta, Augusto and Doreen Cardinali, Sarah Rita Mansour and Mario and Maria Barbara had their residences and garages passed to them through the family.

The properties in Triq il-Foss and Triq Athlone in Paola were passed through the family since November 1887 when their ancestors took over the land from Josephine Bugeja against a 99-year temporary emphyteusis of Lm2.42 annually.

In May 1987, the temporary emphyteusis expired and the residents applied at court that emphyteusis is converted into a perpetual one against payment of the annual ground rent multiplied by six in terms of the Housing Ordinance of 1959.

Six years later the Court upheld the plaintiff's request and in 2001, a Court of Appeal confirmed the first court's decree and upheld its decision that the ground rent was to be converted from a temporary one to a perpetual one.

However, notwithstanding the appeal, Josephine Bugeja sent official letters to the tenants demanding they vacate the property, but her demands were ignored.

She subsequently filed a constitutional case claiming the Housing Ordinance violated her right to enjoy her property, and asked the conversion to a perpetual emphyteusis to be declared null and void, only to be rejected. She then appealed.

On 3 April 2009, Bugeja passed away and the case was taken over by her nephew, Raymond. Moreover, in the same year, the Court of Constitutional appeal upheld Bugeja's claims and ruled the conversion to a perpetual emphyteusis breached Bugeja's rights, and declared it void.

In virtue of the Constitutional decision, Raymond Bugeja sought remedy at the First Hall of the Civil Court and argued that since the previous judgments were rejected, the tenants were occupying his property illegally.

In separate but identical judgments, Mr Justice Joseph Azzopardi upheld Bugeja's request and ordered all five families to vacate their residences by the end of May.

Speaking to MaltaToday, lawyer John Vassallo, who was appearing on behalf of these evicted families said these judgments will send a shockwave around the property market as other landowners will start claiming back property which had been handed to tenants by perpetual emphyteusis.

"Thousands of families could end up evicted from the residences where they have been born and raised. Notwithstanding the court's role to protect the rights of the landowners, it must ignore those of the tenants. While the simple conversion of the annual ground rent multiplied by six, is understandably not reasonable, when an out of court settlement was sought the owners demanded exorbitant amounts of money for their land," the lawyer said.

He said the families would be appealing the judgment.

avatar
Guzep while not agreeing with requisition, requisitions were carried out by all governments, the British, Labour and Nationalist government as a stop-gap to preent thousands of people ending up homeless. What was wrong was that they were carried out to extremes and no account was taken of the cost of living increases which had occurred throughout the years and no limit was made for the period of requisition. One can also think not only about property such as houses, but also of other roperty such as that taken by governments to make roads, thattaken by the British government to construct airports and other defenes which was never returned to its previous owners who only got a mere pittance as compensation for serving the British Crown. We can continue like this because at any moment in time we can find injustices, but decisions have to be seen in the perspective of the time that they were taken, which is a specialized subject of inter-temporal law.
avatar
I agree with Guzep. Well said.
avatar
Priscilla Darmenia
Finally a sensible judgement that restores the rights of owners which was taken away by an unjust law.
avatar
Can you imagine,thousands of families evicted from their home under PL.
avatar
I have a strong question to Lawyer Vassallo. What about owners who inherited the property from our parents which was Requisitioned (confiscated) by then Dom Mintoff in 1979? This property is still occupied by the original squatter and my siblings and I cannot even look inside the property to see what we inherited? We want to sell this property so we can enjoy the fruit of our parents, but alas nobody wants to buy this property because this buyer wants this property for business and it does not do him any good with a tenant in it. Where are our rights as landlords Mr Lawyer Vassallo? These archaic laws must be changed and soon, so my siblings and I might get the chance to enjoy our inheritance before we die. This the year 2014 and there are approximately 3500 empty properties on the island.