The Rent Control Law, depending on the case, sets specific conditions for the issuance of an eviction order for a statutory tenant, which are set cumulatively and not alternatively. The proof of these being met is imperative.

Only then will the court proceed to examine the other two conditions of the law concerning the reasonableness of the issuance of the eviction order and weighing the inconvenience of the two parties. If any of these is not proven, then the owner will inevitably not succeed in their application and the court will reject it, burdening them with the costs.

Article 11(2) of Law 23/1983 provides that in cases where no other written notice of eviction is required, the landlord must serve the tenant with a written notice at least one month in advance. The content of the notice is important since it must clearly state the grounds for eviction. These are the only grounds to which the landlord must refer exclusively in their application for eviction of the tenant.

Where recovery of possession is claimed and the law provides for the provision of not less than four months of written notice to the tenant to vacate the property and the landlord invokes more than one ground for eviction, the four-month period also covers the one-month period.

Case law stipulates that general or vague allegations without reference to the grounds for eviction do not make the written notice valid and therefore do not meet the relevant condition set by the law.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court, in its decision issued in C.A.285/2015, dated January 22, considered an appeal by a shop owner against the decision of the Rent Control Court to reject his request for. Specifically, the tenant, for the purposes of carrying out the works of his business, installed refrigerators of various types in the two shops, two of which were installed inside the shops and one cold storage room outside them, adjacent to the external wall of one of the shops.

In this regard, it is stated in the decision of the Supreme Court that the owner based his application for eviction on two grounds, that the tenant (a) became guilty of conduct that constitutes a nuisance and a continuous intrusion on the owner and his neighbouring properties, and (b) demonstrated willfully gross negligence and/or due to his destructive acts, illegally, unfairly and unjustifiably and/or in violation of the terms of the tenancy, caused or permitted significant damage to the shops and the entire property.

The Rent Control Court, in relation to the landlord’s application for an order to remove illegal interventions which the tenant allegedly carried out in a space outside the leased premises, referred the matter to the District Court for adjudication due to lack of jurisdiction to issue such an order.

However, it examined the landlord’s remaining claims and concluded that he had not proven his relevant allegations and it was led to dismiss the application on the basis that the landlord had not complied with the requirement provided for in article 11(2) of Law 23/83 concerning the service of a written notice of eviction.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the Rent Control Court, referring to the provisions of the above section, found that the owner did not give the tenant a written notice of eviction from the premises and that this constituted a condition for the issuance of the requested order.

Indeed, it was not stated that any testimony was given during the hearing regarding the sending of such a written notice to the tenant, while it is not established that such event is stated in the owner’s application.

As a result, the Rent Control Court rejected the application essentially on this basis. As it stated in its decision, the sending of such a notice, if required by the law, constitutes a condition that must be met in order for an eviction order to be issued against the tenant, on the basis of section 11(1)(c) of the law.

Supreme Court conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that Law 23/1983 specifically provides in cases of eviction that the filing of the relevant application must be preceded by the service of a written notice to the statutory tenant regarding the requested reason for eviction. If this does not happen, as has been demonstrated by the case law of the Supreme Court, the application itself is dismissible on this basis alone. Therefore, it considered that in light of the relevant case law, the decision of the Rent Control Court was correct and dismissed the appeal.

George Coucounis is a lawyer specialising in Immovable Property Law, based in Larnaca. E-mail: [email protected], tel: 24818288