The existence of ambiguity in a rental agreement can create disputes between the owner and the tenant, which can end up in court. Such ambiguity may concern the method of payment of the rent, for example the owner may collect the rent in person or through a representative.

When an owner seeks to regain possession of their property and invents a reason to evict the tenant, who is statutory and has possessed the property for many years, the court will not allow such abusive behaviour by the owner. Refusal by the landlord to collect the rent, while it is offered by the tenant and its payment to the court’s accounting office on time, cannot create a right to recover possession due to rent owed and as a result of its systematic non-payment.

In statutory tenancy, the grounds for eviction are restricted. Failure to pay the rent due is among them, and it is possible for the tenant to pay the rent due within the time limits specified in the law. If they systematically fail to pay the rent they may find themselves facing an eviction order.

Meaning of systematic non-payment of rent

The President of the Rent Control Court, Mr G. Chr. Pagiasis, in a judgement dated March 28, had to decide on an owner’s claim to recover possession of a property, which the tenant had been renting and using as a business premises for 34 years, citing that he owed three lots of rent totaling €1.800 and that he did not pay the monthly rent systematically.

The tenant’s position was that the owner was acting with another motive, that he never refused to pay the accrued rent and that as a result of the owner’s refusal to accept the rent he paid the amount to the court’s accounting office, within the deadline provided for in the law.

The court held that the possibility of issuing an eviction order due to a systematic refusal to pay rent concerns a remedy falling under the single ground of non-payment of rent. The purpose of this provision is to balance the option granted to the tenant to pay within a further 14 days of service of the application, even if they have previously failed to pay within 21 days of service of a written notice. If the tenant pays within that period, the landlord cannot claim possession, “unless the tenant has systematically failed to pay what is legally due during the tenancy”.

He noted that the above provision concerns a reservation and not an extension of the basic rule. The existence of continuous behaviour is implied and required. Any reasons, such as health or financial reasons, which caused or contributed to the repeated failure to pay are of no concern. This legislative provision does not create rights for the benefit of the owner, nor does it allow them to manipulate situations to circumvent the protected right to statutory tenancy.

Court conclusion

The court acknowledged the three-month delay in the payment, but what needed to be ascertained was how the omission occurred. Was the tenant obliged to seek out the landlord in a specific place or to send the rent to him in some predetermined manner, or was it the landlord who was obliged to come to collect the rent and did not act accordingly?

He added that the disputed lease did not specify whether the rent was payable or collectable, nor did it impose on the tenant the obligation to pay the rent in a specific manner. Generally, when the lease does noy specify, it is presumed that the leased property is the place of rent collection, unless something else is proven. Also, the leased land can be made the place of collection of the rent through applied practice.

The court’s finding was that the rent was paid in cash at the property to the owner’s father, who used to pass by for this purpose, and there was no variation in the method of payment. There was a three-month delay in the payment of the rent, but this single delay was not sufficient, on its own, to trigger the legislative reservation and the application was dismissed.

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