Justice sets the limits in the rental relationship

Rent control law 23/83 clearly regulates the relationship between landlords and statutory tenants, offering the latter security of tenure and protection from arbitrary evictions and excessive rent increases. This protection, however, is not absolute.

Article 11 of the law expressly sets out the circumstances under which the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the property. Two of the most important grounds are the need for own use and the systematic non-payment of rent.

The legal aspect lies in the fact that the landlord–tenant relationship is in constant balance: the tenant enjoys the right of possession to secure a home or professional premises, while the landlord may regain possession if they prove valid and lawful reasons.

This balance constitutes a fundamental principle of the law and is strictly applied by the courts, so as to prevent any abusive invocation, whether by the landlord or the tenant.

The obligation to pay rent

Payment of rent is a fundamental term of every tenancy. When the tenant fails to meet this obligation and the failure becomes systematic, the contractual relationship itself is undermined.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that such conduct constitutes grounds for eviction, since it is not possible to protect a tenant who does not comply with essential obligations.

The President of the Limassol–Paphos Rent Control Court delivered a judgment on August 20 in the case of a landlord of a three-bedroom residence in Limassol who relied both on the need for own use and the systematic non-payment of rent by the statutory tenant. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the requirements of the law were met.

The tenant put forward personal and financial difficulties as reasons for non-payment, citing reliance on the guaranteed minimum income and entitlement to rental allowance from the welfare services.

The court, however, rejected this argument, stressing that personal circumstances, however understandable, do not remove the obligation to pay rent. Non-payment cannot be justified by external factors, as the lease presupposes mutual consistency and good faith.

The interpretation of ‘systematic non-payment’

The court clarified that it is not necessary for the tenant to completely abstain from paying rent in order to establish systematic non-payment. Repeated and ongoing defaults are sufficient, as they reveal a pattern of conduct. Even sporadic payments do not negate the fact that a consistent failure or unwillingness to pay constitutes grounds for eviction.

This interpretation is consistent with established case law, which has long held that the protection of the statutory tenant under the rent control regime does not extend to cases where the tenant themselves undermines their obligation to pay rent.

Case law thus makes it clear that tenure is not ‘bulletproof’, but depends on compliance with contractual obligations.

Legal and social significance

The above judgment reaffirms that law 23/83 is built on balance: protection of the tenant from abuses, but also recognition of the landlord’s right to property and to the agreed consideration. Non-payment of rent cannot remain unpunished, otherwise the very notion of tenancy is nullified.

On a social level, this ruling is particularly significant in times of financial hardship, highlighting that personal problems do not exempt one from legal obligations. Stable case law ensures predictability and legal certainty for all: both landlords and tenants know in advance the limits of their rights and obligations.

The judgment acquires special weight at a time when housing pressure in Limassol and other Cypriot cities is greater than ever. The need to balance interests between landlords and tenants concerns not only the legal order but also social cohesion.

The decision demonstrates that justice can provide solutions that protect both sides, provided that genuine evidence and a sincere invocation of needs are presented.

Cypriot case law proves that, despite the strong protection afforded to tenants by law, systematic non-payment of rent is a serious breach leading to eviction. The tenant must pay the rent, while the landlord has the right to protect their property against bad faith or indifferent conduct.

The ruling sends a clear message: the tenancy relationship is reciprocal and cannot be maintained when the tenant systematically defaults on their obligations.