Such a waiver gives the tenant the right to be heard even if the rent is not paid.
The conduct of the landlord and tenant is reviewed by the Rent Control Court. If the landlord refuses to collect rent or contributes to its non-payment, the court grants the tenant the right to be heard.
Amendment to Law 3(i)/2020 restricts a tenant’s right to appeal a repossession application. The appeal must be accompanied by one of two things. The first option is proof that the amount owed as overdue rent has been deposited with the court. The second option is proof that it was paid to the lessor, his representative or a banking institution in their favor.
However, the court, in order to allow the tenant to file an appeal, considers not only the question of his inaction, but also its reasons. Attention is also paid to the question of whether the landlord really refused to collect rent. The study of these facts ensures that the principles of natural justice and the tenant’s right to a fair trial are respected. Is there an early decision on whether non-payment of rent was justified by the behavior of the landlord.
The amendment includes a provision that the clerk’s decision to accept or deny a tenant’s appeal must be made within three business days. It is at this stage that the court decides whether it will accept the tenant’s appeal, giving reasons for its decision.There are times when the landlord does not agree with the decision and believes that the tenant is abusing the procedure because he does not pay the rent. In such a situation, the owner may apply for an exception or cancellation of the response.
The foregoing proceedings were reviewed by the President of the Rent Control Court in a decision rendered on 16 November. The application was filed by the landlord, who sought the recovery of the title to the house and the overdue rent. The tenant filed an appeal and gave an explanation of why the rent was not paid. He attributed the omission to the landlord, who did not sign the lease as they had agreed. He said the landlord wanted to keep collecting rent from benefits that used to be paid by bank transfer to his account. This is due to the fact that the tenant received the minimum guaranteed income. The appeal was accepted because the court considered that the answer raised questions that were attributed to the landlord.
Since the issue appears to be more than just late payment of rent, the landlord responded with a motion to dismiss the appeal, but the tenant filed an objection. The Court took into account the legal framework and the relevant facts, and concluded that the acceptance of the appeal was the result of an assessment of all relevant facts. Emphasis was placed, in particular, on the protection of the tenant, which was not assessed as sufficient. On the contrary, the tenant, in a simple but clear way, connected his omission with the behavior of the landlord.It would be unfair and inappropriate to consider how the foregoing affected the claim for repossession in the absence of the tenant. Ensuring the principles of natural justice and the right of the tenant to a fair trial exceeds the rights of the landlord under the new section 11 (1) (a) of the rent control law.
The Court added that the whole issue seemed to have more than one aspect, contrary to what the lessor was trying to demonstrate, and that it was not limited to considering the provisions of Article 11(1)(a). From a legal point of view, the issue under consideration may be related, on the one hand, to the determination of the actual terms of the lease and the impact of Article 27 on them, and, on the other hand, to the principles for establishing a waiver. Consequently, the court dismissed the motion to strike out the appeal.
Source and photo cyprus-mail.com Editor estateofcyprus.com