17.05.2021
A new provision on rent control has been added to the law. It extends to cases where the landlord demands repossession of the property and the tenant fails to pay the rent. The new provision gives the tenant the right to counterclaim an eviction application. But he must prove that the rent was paid. In this case, the Court Registrar accepts or rejects the tenant’s claim. The decision of the registrar is submitted to the court within three working days.
The decision of the court is not subject to appeal and cannot be the subject of a petition for the issuance of a court order. Even if the law was misinterpreted by the court. The landlord may use the civil procedure remedy, either O.27 R.2 or O.48 R.11. An application must then be made to exclude the tenant’s claim for non-compliance with section 11(1)(a)(ii) of the Rent Control Law 23/83.
One of the following three documents must be attached to the tenant’s objections:
- a receipt from the accounting department of the court, indicating the amount from the application (since the rent arrears were paid to the court on the date of filing the answer);
- a receipt issued by the landlord or his representative;
- a receipt that the amount was deposited in a bank in favor of the lessor or his representative.
A provision has been added to limit abuse of the process by tenants. Because there were cases of deliberate non-payment of debts by tenants who took advantage of the delay in the consideration of cases in court.An action was filed with the Supreme Court for a writ of recovery against a rent regulation court decision pursuant to section 11(1)(a)(ii). In particular, the court upheld the tenant’s objection to the landlord’s application for eviction. At the same time, no proof of payment of the overdue rent was attached to the objection. The landlord argued that the court erroneously accepted the filing of the objection, as it appeared that the tenant had paid only a part, and not all, of the amount due. In fact, in his response, the tenant did not make any demands for repayment of the debt. The objection was accompanied only by a confirmation of the payment of a part of the amount due to the banking institution, which contradicts the above article.
The Supreme Court, which is considering the landlord’s application, dismissed it in its April 26 decision. The court pointed out that the landlord referred to the terms of the lease, as well as to the tenant’s failure to pay the due rent.
It was also noted that the contested court decision had not been submitted because there was no written text of it. It was taken from the file where the objection was filed. The property owner pointed out to the court the fact that he had no right of appeal and that the only remedy he was offered was to apply for a certificate and take the action to a higher authority. The Court, referring to case law, emphasized that the certificate was basically issued to enable the lower court to act within its jurisdiction and in accordance with the fundamental rules of law.As regards jurisdiction, the criterion is whether the order in question fell within the jurisdiction of the court that issued it. The lack of jurisdiction must be evident from the record of the trial.
The Supreme Court was not convinced that the lower court had acted illegally. Even if the court has misinterpreted the relevant section, it cannot give effect to the privileged power of the supreme court to grant appropriate leave to apply for a writ of certiorari. He pointed out that the rules of civil procedure, either through O.27 R.2 or O.48 R.11, are available to the landlord. They are required to apply for the exception of the tenant’s objection or any other remedy. The application was rejected.
