DEMETRIADES ν. VASSIADES ESTATES (1985) 1 CLR 764

(1985) 1 CLR 764

1985 November 7

[MALACHTOS, DEMETRIADES, SAVVIDES, JJ.]

IOANNIS C. DEMETRIADES,

Appellant-Respondent,

A. VASSIADES ESTATES LTD.,

Respondents-Applicants.

(Civil Appeal No. 5864).

Interpretation of Statutes-Retrospective effect-Statutes will not be construed retrospectively unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended-Law 24/77-A limited retrospective effect of said law as from 1.4.77 was intended.

The Rent Control Law 36/75 s. 15(1) as amended by Law 24/77-The Displaced Tenants Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law 4176- Appellant a "displaced tenant"-The rent fixed by the original tenancy, was £30 per month-Such rent was later reduced by the Tribunal under Law 4/76 to £28 per month-After the enactment. of Law 24/77 appellant claimed reduction of the originally agreed rent by 20 per cent as from the date of the original tenancy (30.10.74) under section 15(1) of Law 36/75 as amended by Law, 24/77-There is nothing to prevent the appellant from enjoying the benefit of either of the above enactments Laws 4/76 and 24/77-Consequently appellant is entitled to such reduction, but only as from 1.4.77 (see above under Interpretation of Statutes).

On the 30.10.1974 the respondents let to the appellant a flat together with its furniture for residential purposes for a period of one year commencing on 1.11.1974 at the rent of £30 per month. The tenant was not entitled to any relief by way of reduction of rent, as the reduction by 20 percent provided by s.3(1) of The Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law51/74, applied only to tenancies existing on the 14.10.1974. The enactment of the Rent Control Law 36/75 did not change the situation because s. 15(1) of the said law confined the right to reduction of rent by 20 per cent to tenancies contracted on or before 14.10.1974.

After the enactment of the Displaced Tenants Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law 4/76 the appellant, who was a "displaced tenant" within the meaning of s. 2(1) of this Law, applied to the tribunal created by such law to fix the rent pay able by him in respect of the said flat. The flat was covered by s. 5 of the said Law. The tribunal fixed the rent at £28 per month its decision became final.

Section 15 of Law 36/75 was subsequently amended by the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Law 24/77, extending the application of section 15(1) to premises let before the 31.12.1976. As a result the appellant claimed a reduction by 20 per cent of the contractual monthly rent of £30 as from 1.11.1974 and informed the respondents that he would not pay them any rent until the amount of £180, which, according to his calculations, he had paid in excess of £24 per month, be set off against future rents.

As a result the respondents filed an application for eviction for arrears of rent and the respondent counterclaimed for a declaration of the Court recognising his right to reduce the contractual rent by 20 per cent as aforesaid.

Eventually the only issue that remained for determination was whether the appellant was or was not entitled to the benefit provided in section 15 of Law 3 6/75 as amended by Law 24177.

It should be noted that though Law 24/77 was published in the Official Gazette of the 27.5.77 its operation was given effect as from 1.4.77 (see section 3 of the Law).

The trial Court dismissed the tenant's (appellant's) claim for reduction of rent by 20 per cent by virtue of s. 15 of Law 36/75 as amended by Law 24/77. Hence the present appeal. The grounds of appeal are the following:

1. The learned trial Judge erred in holding that s. 15 of the Rent Control Law, Law 36/75 as amended by s. 2 of Law 24/77 applies to rents from April 1st 1977 and not to rents from 20th July; .1974.

2. The learned trial Judge erred in holding that the Court constituted under Law 36/75 does not today have jurisdiction to adjudicate on rents which became payable before the enactment of Law 4176, in cases where the tenant would also come under the provisions of Law 4/76.

3. Consequently the learned trial Judge should have granted relief to the appellant for the rents of the period 1.11.1974 to 28.2.1976 under s. 15 of Law 36/75 as amended by Law 24/77.

Held, partly allowing the appeal:

(A) As regards the first ground of appeal: It is well settled that statutes are not to be "construed retrospectively, unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. The trial Court rightly held that as it is clear from the express words of section 3 of Law 24/77 only limited retrospective effect was given to the said law as from, 1.4.77.

(B) As regards the remaining grounds of appeal: Under the provisions of Law 36/75, which was enacted for the purposes of "amending, consolidating and incorporating all rent control laws", all rents payable in respect of premises for which the law applied were automatically reduced by 20 per cent in respect of tenancies contracted on or before 14.10.74. Law 36/75 incorporated in this respect a similar provision of Law 51/74 but extended such relief to tenants of all premises and not premises occupied, for residential purposes. Under the second proviso to s. 15(1) of Law 36/75 such relief could only be claimed by tenant who "is proved to have been substantially affected by the abnormal situation".

(2) Law 4/76 was enacted to provide an additional remedy in the case of "displaced persons" irrespective as to whether they were benefited or not under Law 36/75. Law 4/76 did not repeal or restrict the application of Law36/75. Section 3 of Law 4/76 provides that the Law is applicable "notwithstanding the provisions of any other Law".

(3) Notwithstanding the enactment of Law 4/76 it was found necessary to extent the provisions of Law 36/75 to "displaced tenants" in respects of tenancies contracted on or before 31.12.76 by the enactment of Law 24/77.

(4) There is nothing depriving a "displaced tenant" from enjoying the benefit of either Law 4J76 or Law 24/77 or in case the relief given by law 4/1976 is less than that of Law 24 of 1977 which amended Law 36 of 1975, to deprive such tenant from such benefit if the law is interpreted in the way the trial Court has done, then there would be no reason for the extension of the benefit of reduction of the rent to "displaced tenants" of residential premises in respect of tenancies contracted on or before the 31St December, 1976; as exclusive remedy was given to them by Law 4/76.

(5) In view of the above the appellant's claim for reduction of the original rent by 20% should succeed as from 1.477.

Appeal partly allowed.

No order as to costs.

Cases referred to:

Blyth v. Blyth and Pugh [1965] 3 W.L.R. 365;

HjiErini Nicola v. CharalambosChristofi and Another (1965) 1 C.L. R. 324.

Appeal.

Appeal by respondent against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Boyadjis, S.D.J.) dated the 20th June, 1978 (Rent Control Appl. No: 228/77) whereby his application under the Rent Control Laws by which he claimed reduction of rent by 20% of the residential premises occupied by him, was dismissed.

A. Ladas, for the appellant.

N. Pelides, for the respondents.

Cur.adv. vult.

MALACHTOS J.: The judgment of V the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Savvides.

SAVVIDES J.: This is an appeal against the dismissal by the District Court of Nicosia of an application under the Rent Control Laws by which appellant claimed reduction of rent by twenty per cent of residential premises occupied by him and rented to him by the respondents. It was the allegation of the appellant that he was entitled to such reduction under the provisions of the Rent Control Law No. 36 of 1975, as amended by the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Law No. 24 of 1977.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

The respondents are the owners of a block of flats sisuated at 10, Navarinou Street, Nicosia.

On October 30, 1974, by virtue of a written tenancy agreement, the respondents let for residential purposes flat No. 8 of their said block of flats to the appellant, together with its furniture, for a period of one year commencing on the 1st November, 1974, at the agreed rent of £30.- per month.

At the time when the tenant took over possession of this one-bedroom flat, there was no law in force covering such premises granting the tenant any relief from his contractual. obligation to pay the rent agreed upon by virtue of his contract, in as much as the reduction by 20 percent provided for in s. 3(1) of the Immovable Properly for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law No. 51 of 1974 applied only to those tenancies which were existing on the 14th October, 1974, the date when the Law was published in the official Gazette of the Republic.

On the 11th July, 1975, the Rent Control Law No. 36 of1975 was published. Its enactment did not change the situation as regards the appellant as far as his obligation to pay his agreed rent in toto was concerned. Relief in this respect was again denied to him because s. 15(1) of the Law, granting a right to tenants substantially affected by the abnormal situation to claim reduction of their rent by 20 percent, applied again only to tenancies contracted on or before the 14th October, 1974. The appellant continued in possession as statutory tenant under Law No. 36 of 1975.

Thus the law on the matter stood on the 13th February, 1976, when the Displaced Tenants Immovable Proper for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law No. 4 of 1976 was enacted. Thereupon, the tenant applied in March, 1976; to the District Officer of Nicosia, the tribunal appointed under the Law, to fix the rent payable by him in respect of the flat in his possession. It was never in dispute that the tenant was at all material times a "displaced tenant" within the meaning of s. 2(1) of this Law. It was furthermore common ground that the provisions of the Law covered the flat in question which clearly fell under s. 5 thereof. On the 27th March, 1976, the District Officer fixed the rent at £28.- per month and communicated his decision to the interested parties purporting to act under s. 3 of the Law. The appellant protested to the District Officer for his decision but such protest met no favourable reply. As a result, but after the expiration of thirty days provided by section 3(5) of the Law for filing an application to the Court against the Tribunal's decision, he instituted in Court proceedings by Application No. 199/75, under section 3(5) of the Law, which were dismissed as being out of time. The decision of the District Officer fixing the rent at £28.- per month became final.

Section 15 of Law 36 of 1975 was subsequently amended by the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Law of 1977 (Law 24 of 1977) published on the 27th May, 1977, extending the application of section 15(1) to premises let before the 31st December, 1976. As a result, the appellant informed the respondents by letter, through his counsel, dated 15th June, 1977, that he was reducing his contractual monthly rent from £30.- by 20 per cent as from 1.11.1974 onwards. He further informed them that he would not pay them any rent until the amount of £180- which, according to his calculations, he had been paying in excess of £24.-, be set against future rents.

The respondents rejected the appellant's claim and on 5 14.6.1977 they addressed to him by registered post a written notice demanding payment of the rents in arrears within 21 days from receipt thereof.

The appellant having failed to comply with the aforesaid demand, the landlords filed an application on 14.7.1977 under the Rent Control Law, 1975 and regulation 3(1) made thereunder, praying for:-

1. An order for possession against the appellant under section 16(1) (a) of the Law;

2. Declaration that the appellant is not entitled to any reduction of his rent under Law No. 36 of 1975, his rent having been fixed at his own application by the District Officer under Law No. 4 of 1976;

3. Order fixing the rent of the furnished flat at £35.- per month from 1.8.1977 onwards;

4. Costs of the application.

The appellant denied in his statement of defence that the respondents were entitled to, anyone of the aforementioned reliefs and counterclaimed for a declaration of the Court recognising his right to reduce his original monthly rent of £30.- by 20 per cent for as long as section 15 of Law 36 of 1975 as amended by Law 24 of 1977 remained in force.

The appellant, shortly before the date of the hearing of the application paid to his landlords counsel all the arrears of rent calculated on the basis of the decision of the District Officer. As a consequence, the respondents withdrew in Court their claim for eviction. They also withdrew their claim for an increase in the rent because, as their counsel explained, the Court had no jurisdiction to fix the rent for this flat under section 7 of Law 36 of 1975 upon which their claim was based.

What, thus, remained to be tried was whether in the circumstances of the case, the appellant was or was not entitled to the benefit provided in section 15 of Law 36 of 1975 as later amended. A negative declaration to that effect was prayed in para. (2) of the application and an affirmative declaration to the same effect was claimed in the counterclaim.

No evidence was called by either side, as there was no dispute on the factual situation. They only addressed the Court on the legal aspect of the case.

Before embarking on the issues before us, we find it necessary to make a brief reference to the relevant provisions in the laws relating to the present case.

The Rent Control Law 1975 (Law 36 of 1975) was enacted for the purpose of "amending, consolidating and incorporating all rent control laws and making provision on collateral matters". It expressly repealed all relevant laws in force at the time. Section 15 of Law 36 of 1975 provides as follows:

"15.-1 During, the abnormal situation and in any case not later than the thirty-first December 1975, all the rents payable for premises shall be reduced by twenty per cent as from the twentieth July 1974 and. the tenant shall pay, as from that date, the sum so reduced in full satisfaction of his liabilities towards the landlord:

Provided that such reduction shall not apply to any rents which at the date of the coming into operation of this Law, are paid under the provisions of -

(a) the Rent (Control) Law as applied before the thirtieth August, 1974; or

(b) the Rent Control Business Premises Law save where the rent of the business premises is higher than the one paid before the thirty-first December, 1969; or

(d) any contract of tenancy made after the fourteenth October, 1974;

Provided further that nothing in this section contained shall apply

(a) unless the tenant is proved to have been Substantially affected by the abnormal situation; or

(b) where the landlord is proved to have been substantially affected by the application of the provisions of this Law in consequence of the abnormal situation; or

(2) Any reduction of rent of a dwelling house made under the provisions of the Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1974 shall be deemed to be a reduction made under the provisions of this Part."

Sub-section (2) of section 15 refers to the provisions which existed in section 3 of Law 51/1974, a law which was enacted shortly after the Turkish invasion of Cypruscontaining temporary provision to remedy the consequential effect of the Turkish invasion upon the tenants of residential premises, under sub-section (1) of section 3 of which the rent of any residential premises not covered by the Rent Control Laws, is reduced by 20 per cent as from date of the coming into operation of the Law (the 14th October, 1974).

The Displaced Tenants Immovables for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1976 (Law 4 of 1976) was enacted as it appears in its title and its preamble as a necessary social measure aiming at a just distribution amongst all citizens of the burdens created by the Turkish invasion and intended for the protection of displaced tenants concerning the rent payable by them for the occupation of house accommodation and for securing to them house accommodation. Section 3 of the Law provides "that during the abnormal situation and notwithstanding the provisions of any other law in force, the following provisions shall be in force and shall apply." Then section 3 provides that the rent payable by displaced tenants for immovables for residential purposes shall be fixed by the District officer of the district where the immovable is situate; that the District Officer shall fix such rent taking into consideration all the circumstances of each case including, inter alia, the personal circumstances of the landlord and the tenant, the rent payable for the same immovable or other similar immovable in the area on or before 15.7.1974 and the 20 per cent reduction of rents made under the Rent Control Law 1975: Provided that in no case the rent fixed by the District Officer shall exceed the 80 per cent of the rent payable on or before 15 .7.1974 nor shall it exceed the rent payable on 13.2.1976 when Law 4 of 1976 came into operation (sub-section (1)). A duty is imposed on the District Officer to do so within thirty days from receiving a written application to that effect by either the tenant or the landlord (sub-section 2). The rent so fixed shall, as from the date of filing the application, be deemed to be the rent which the tenant has the obligation to pay to the landlord independently of the provisions of any existing tenancy agreement (sub-section 3). Any person dissatisfied from the decision of the District Officer is given the right to apply to the Court established under section 4, for revision of such decision.

By section 2 of the Rent Control (Amendment) Law of 1977 (Law 24 of 1977) section 15 of the Rent Control Law 1975 (Law 36 of 1975), the principal law, was amended as follows:

«2. To άρθρον 15 του βασικού νόμου τροποποιείται ώς ακολούθως:

(α) Διά της αντικαταστάσεως εις τό εδάφιον (1) αυτού των λέξεων '31η Μαΐου 1977' (διά των οποίων αντικατεστάθησαν αι λέξεις '31η Δεκεμβρίου. 1975' (γραμμή 2) διά του άρθρου 2 του Νόμου 17 του 1977), διά των λέξεων '31η Μαρτίου, 1978'.

(β) διά της αντικαταστάσεως της παραγράφου (δ) της πρώτης επιφυλάξεως του εδαφίου (I) αυτού διά της ακολούθου νέας παραγράφου:

'(δ) Οιασδήποτε συμβάσεως ενοικιάσεως συναφθείσης μετά τήν 31 ην Δεκεμβρίου, 1976.'

(γ) διά της ,αντικαταστάσεως της παραγράφου (α) της δευτέρας επιφυλάξεως του εδαφίου (I) αυτού διά της ακολούθου νέας παραγράφου:

'(α) εκτός εάν ο ενοικιαστής αποδεδειγμένως έχη επηρεασθή ουσιωδώς εκ της εκρύθμου καταστάσεως και εξακολουθή ούτως να επηρεάζηται, νοουμένου ότι ο εκτοπισθείς ενοικιαστής τεκμαίρεται ότι έχει ούτος επηρεασθή και εξακολουθεί να επηρεάζεται.

Διά τους σκοπούς της παραγράφου ταύτης 'εκτοπισθείς ενοικιαστής' σημαίνει παν πρόσωπον όπερ κατά τον αμέσως πρό της Τουρκικής εισβολής χρόνον είχε την μόνιμον αυτού κατοικίαν ή κυρίαν επαγγελματικήν στέγην, αναλόγως της περιπτώσεως, είς περιοχήν ήτις ώς εκ της εισβολής κατέστη απροσπέλαστος ή εκηρύχθη ώς δυσπραγούσα περιοχή συμφώνως πρός τας διατάξεις του εδαφίου (2) του άρθρου 3 του παρόντος Νόμου ή γειτνιάζει πρός τας γραμμάς αντιπαρατάξεως' και

(δ) διά της προσθήκης, μετά το εδάφιον (I), του ακολούθου νέου εδαφίου, του εδαφίου (2) επαναριθμουμένου ώς εδαφίου (3).

'(2) Έν περιπτώσει οιασδήποτε αμφισβητήσεως ώς πρός τήν εφαρμογήν της παραγράφου (α) ή της παραγράφου (β) της δευτέρας έπιφυλάξεως του εδαφίου (Ι) του παρόντος άρθρου, ο αμφισβητών τήν εφαρμογήν ταύτης δύναται να προσφύγη είς το Δικαστήριον πρός επίλυσιν της διαφοράς',»

(2. Section 15 of the principal law is amended as follows:

(a) By substituting the words '31st May 1977' (whereby the words '31st December 1975'. (line.2) were substituted by section 2 of Law 17 of 1977) in sub-section I with the words '31st March 1978'.

(b) By substituting paragraph (d) of the first proviso of sub-section 1 by the following new paragraph.

'(d) Any contract of tenancy made after the 31st December 1976'.

'(a) Unless the tenant is proved to have been substantially affected by the abnormal situation and continues to be so affected, provided that a displaced tenant is presumed to have been so affected and continues to be so affected.

For the purpose of this paragraph displaced tenant means any person who at the time immediately preceding the Turkish invasion had his permanent place of abode or main business premises, as the case may be, in an area which by reason of the invasion became inaccessible or was declared to be a depressed area by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 of this Law or is in the neighbourhood of the 'confrontation lines', and

(d) By adding, after sub-section (1), the following new sub-section and renumbering sub-section (2) as sub-section (3).

2. In case of any dispute concerning the application of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the second proviso of sub-section (1) of this section, the person disputing its applicability may file a recourse to the Court for the determination of the dispute' ").

Though Law 24 of 1977 was published in the official Gazette of the Republic of the 27th May, 1977, its operation was given effect as from 1st April, 1977 (see section 3 of the Law).

The learned Senior District Judge, in his judgment proceeded to construe the relative provisions of Laws 36175 and 4/76 and after comparing the aforesaid enactments came to the following conclusion:-"The earlier statute (Law 36/75) is, because of its nature, a general statute creating certain rights in favour of tenants of shops as well as residential premises in the field of rent control. The subsequentstatute (Law 4/76) is a special statute containing provisions applicable only to a special class of the population, namely, the displaced tenants of immovables for residential purposes, also on matters of rent control."

Then he embarked at some length on the principle that subsequent laws abrogate prior contrary ones and the extent to which such principle is qualified by the maxim "generaliaspecialibus non derogant" (general things do not derogate from special things) and "generaliaspecialibusderogant" (special things derogate from general things) and also the extent of the principles of repeal of general enactments by special enactments and concluded as follows:

"I will venture to repeat only that since the passing of the said Law No. 4/76, the provisions of the general law No. 3 6/75 ceased to apply to the case of the present respondent which was exclusively governed by the provisions of the said special law."

On a statement made by counsel for appellant that the amending law 24/77 is also a special law, he found that the amending law being part and parcel of the general Law No. 36175, is also a general law. Finally, in dealing with the proposition of counsel for appellant that it was the intention of the legislator to give retrospective effect to amending Law 24/77 so as to apply to rents which were payable from 20.7.74 the learned Senior District Judge, after reviewing the Case Law of our Supreme Court and also the English Case Law, rejected, such proposition and concluded that under the express provisions of section 3 of Law 24/77, only limited retrospective operation was given to Law 24/77, as from the 1st April, 1977, and not any retrospective operation as from 20.7.74. In the result, he dismissed the appellant's claim from reduction of rent by 20 per cent by virtue of the Rent Control Law 3 6/75, as amended by Law 24/77 and made a declaration as per respondents prayer under paragraph (2) of their application to that effect. As a result appellant lodged the present appeal contending that:

1. The learned trial Judge erred in holding that s. 15 of the Rent Control Law, Law 36/75 as amended by s.2 of Law 24/77 applies to rents from April 1st 1977 and not to rents from 20th July, 1974.

2. The learned trial Judge erred in holding that the Court constituted under Law 36/75 does not today have juris5 diction to adjudicate on rents which became payable before the enactment of Law 4176, in cases where the tenant would also come under the provisions of Law 4/76.

3. Consequently the learned trial Judge should have granted relief to the appellant for the rents of the period 1.11.1974 to 28.2.1976 under s. 15 of Law 36/ 75 as amended by Law 24/77.

Learned counsel on both sides have by their elaborate addresses advanced their arguments on the above grounds.

We shall deal with the grounds of appeal in their numerical order and we shall proceed to examine ground (1) of this appeal first.

It is well settled that statutes are not to be construed retrospectively, unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. Willmer, L.J. in Blyth v. Blyth and Pugh [1965] 3 W.L.R. 365, at 371 expounded on this principle as follows:

"Authority is so abundant as scarcely still to be needed for the proposition that statutes are construed as operating only on cases or on facts which come into existence after the statutes were passed, unless a retrospective effect, be clearly intended. A retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute .so as to impair an existing right or obligation otherwise than as regards a matter of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of an enactment".

The above dictum was cited with approval by our Supreme Court in HjiErini Nicola v. CharalambosChristofi and Another (1965) 1 C.L.R. 324 at p. 335.

In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 11th edition at page 205 we read:

"A statute is not to be construed to have a greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary. Even in. construing a section which is to a certain, extent retrospective, the maxim ought to be borne in mind as applicable whenever the line is reached at which the words of the section cease to be plain. For it is to be observed that the retrospective effect of a statute may be partial in its operation."

We are in agreement with the trial Court that it is clear from the express words of section 3 of Law 24 of 1977 that only limited retrospective operation, was given to Law 24 of 1977 as from the 1st April, 1977. In the result this ground of appeal fails.

We come next to the remaining grounds of appeal.

We find ourselves unable to agree with the result reached by the learned Senior District Judge, that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the reduction of the rent under the provisions of law 24/77.

Under the provisions of the Rent Control Law 1975 (Law 36 of 1975) a law which was enacted for the purpose of "amending, consolidating and incorporating all rent control laws" all rents payable in respect of premises for which the law applied were automatically reduced by 20 percent in respect of tenancies contracted on or before the 14th October, 1974. The duration of the law was fixed as extending during the continuation of the existence of the abnormal situation and in any event not later than the 31st December, 1975, a period which by subsequent laws was extended from year to year till the repeal of this law. Law .36/75 incorporated in this respect a similar provision contained in the Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law (Law 51 of 1974) but extended such relief to tenants of all premises and not premises occupied for residential purposes. Under the second proviso to s. 15(1) of Law 36/75 such relief could only be claimed by a tenant who "is proved to have been substantially affected by the abnormal situation".

Law 4/76 was enacted to provide an additional remedy in the case of "displaced persons" irrespective as to whetherthey were benefited or not under Law 36 of 1975 without however repealing or restricting the application of such law. Section 3 of such law provides that the law is applicable "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law". Such benefit was not automatically bestowed as in the case of Law 36 of 1975 but it was subject to and to the extent to be decided by the tribunal established by such law. A "displaced tenant" is defined by s. 2 of such law as being any person who immediately before the Turkish invasion had his permanent place of abode in an. area which as a result of the invasion has become inaccessible.

Notwithstanding the enactment of such law which was aimed at granting relief to "displaced tenants", in 1977 it was found necessary to extent the provisions of the Rent Control Law 36 of 1975 to "displaced tenants" in respect of tenancies contracted on or before 31st December, 1976 as against the 14th October, 1974 provided by Law 36 of 1975, by the enactment of the Rent Control (Amendment) Law 1977 (Law 24 of 1977). "Displaced tenant" is defined under Law 24 of 1977 in the same terms as those in law 4/76. An additional benefit extended to "displaced tenants" under Law 24/1977 was a presumption to the effect that a "displaced tenant" is to be deemed as having been and continuing to be substantially affected.

Bearing in mind the provisions of Laws 4 of 1976 and 24 of 1977 we find nothing depriving a "displaced tenant" from enjoying the benefit of either of such enactments or in case the relief given by law 4/1976 is less than that of Law 24 of 1977 which amended Law 36 of 1975, to deprive such tenant from such benefit. If we interpret the law in the way the trial Court has done, then we see no reason for the extension of the benefit of reduction of the rent to "displaced tenants of residential premises in respect of tenancies contracted on or before the 31st December,1976, as exclusive remedy was given to them by Law 4/76.

In the result we find that the appellant was entitled to the benefit extended to him by the amending Law 24/77 and in consequence his claim for reduction of the original rent of £30 per month by 20% should succeed as from 1st April, 1977.

It should be observed that after the decision in this application was delivered (on 20.6.1978) the Lease of Immovables for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1978 (Law 56/78) was enacted to regulate matters touching leases of immovables used for residential purposes for refugees. By this law, the Displaced Tenants Immovable Property for Residential Purposes (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1976 (Law 4/76) was repealed and special provisions were enacted for the fixing of rent in the case of "refugees" a definition the meaning of which is the same as that given for displaced tenants by Law 4/76 and the Rent Control Laws.

All Rent Control Laws of 1975 till 1980 as well as Law 56/78 were repealed by the Rent Control Law 1983, (Law 23/8 3). The present case, however concerns an issue which arose during the period the previous laws were in force and it concerns a period as from the 1St April, 1977, the date of the retrospective operation of Law 24/77 for so long as the Rent Control Laws 1975-1977 were applicable.

In the result, the appeal succeed and the judgment of the trial Court is set aside and an order is made whereby the rent of the subject-matter premises is reduced to £24.- per month as from the 1st April, 1977 for so long as section 15 of the Rent Control Law 36/75 as amended by Law 24/77 remained in force.

In the circumstances of the case we make no order for costs.

Appeal partly allowed with

no order as to costs.

cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο

	CyLaw \| Αναφορικά μ'εμάς \| Επικοινωνία