The owners of a Tarxien property subject to a protected lease were awarded almost €180,000 in compensation after having been deprived of enjoyment of their property under the “forced landlord-tenant relationship.”

This was the outcome of another claim which landed in the lap of the civil courts in terms of an application filed by Emanuel Ciantar and his siblings who acquired the property under title of succession in 1987.

The property had long been leased to a married couple.

When the last surviving spouse died, her daughter and son-in-law stepped in as lessees, against an annual rent payment of €225.

The property was originally leased for an annual rent of Lm18, but that amount was increased to €225 in 2009.

The landlords sought an increase, but after broaching the subject with their tenants, they took their grievances to court, arguing that the rent they were paid was inadequate in light of the market value of the property.

Moreover, in terms of the existent legal scenario, since the lease entered into effect prior to June 1, 1995, they were forced to accept renewal of the lease.

Such disproportionate measure breached their right to the enjoyment of their personal property protected by the European Convention.

Since acquiring the property in 1987 up to 2018, the applicants had received some €3,199.56 in rent on the property.

However, after 2018, they refused to accept payment of rent which was subsequently deposited by the tenants in court.

An architect tasked by the owners valued the Tarxien property at €1.2 million.

A court-appointed architect also inspected the premises on Triq l-Isqajjaq reported that the rental value had increased from roughly €3,000 in 1987 to €24,000 in 2020.

The expert concluded that a fair and equitable amount of rent over that period would have been €320,062.

The property was located in an area where it was possible to obtain a permit for development of two additional floors.

No such permit had been issued yet.

In view of its historical value, the property could not be demolished and even if a permit for a garage was obtained, the narrow nature of the street made use of such garage next to impossible, the court was told.

When delivering judgment the First Hall, Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, presided over by Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey, observed that the relevant European Convention article was based on three principles.

Every person had the right to peaceful enjoyment of his property and any encroachment upon that right was only justified if done in the public interest.

Although the State had the right to enact legislation so as to adequately control property use in the public interest, its discretion was not unlimited and was always to be exercised in line with the minimum requirements laid down by the European Convention.

The applicants challenged the lack of proportionality under the current legal scenario.

There was a considerable discrepancy between the rental value of the property and the actual amount they were receiving in rent.

Regaining possession of the property was also an uncertain matter.

The relative legislation had been recently amended to allow owners of such protected leases to obtain an increase in rent up to 2% of the market value of the property and they could also regain possession of the property by proving that the lessees did not deserve State protection.

However, such a “forced landlord-tenant relationship” for an indefinite time meant that the landlords were being deprived of their property which they could only regain under specific strict conditions.

The applicants were clearly shouldering a disproportionate and excessive burden and their fundamental rights were being amply breached because they were being deprived of their property without adequate compensation, said the court.

In light of the circumstances of the case and jurisprudence that was extensively cited in the judgment, the court declared a breach under Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention, awarding the landlords €169,290 in pecuniary damages and a further €10,000 in moral damages.

That compensation was payable by the State.

The court also declared that the lessees could no longer rely on the relative laws to retain occupancy of the premises.

Lawyers Jason Azzopardi and Kris Busietta assisted the applicants.