How recent case law prevents the abuse of possession after the termination of a lease

Possession of immovable property constitutes a central element of ownership and is legally protected against any unlawful interference. When possession is granted with the owner’s consent through a lease or other agreement it is deemed lawful.

However, once that consent ceases to exist, as in the case of the expiry or termination of a lease, the former tenant becomes an unlawful occupier. From that moment onward, the continued possession without consent amounts to unlawful interference (trespass), infringing the owner’s fundamental right to enjoy and dispose of their property.

In Cyprus, this phenomenon has reached worrying proportions. Property owners both of premises and other immovable assets often find former tenants retaining possession for years without paying any rent, exploiting delays in the adjudication of civil disputes.

Such conduct constitutes an abuse of legal process and a violation of property rights, as the lawful owner is deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property while the unlawful occupier benefits from it without obligation.

Article 281 of the Criminal Code

Article 281(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154, provides
“Whoever, without the consent of the person in whose name the land is registered, occupies or enters that land, is guilty of a criminal offence and is liable to imprisonment for up to five years or to a fine of up to ten thousand euros, or to both.”

This provision recognises that possession of land is not merely a civil right but is also subject to criminal proceedings when exercised without consent. It serves a strong deterrent purpose, reinforcing the protection of ownership and restoring balance in the relationship between owner and occupier.

Court of Appeal judgment

In Criminal Appeal No. 94/2022, the Court of Appeal examined with unprecedented clarity the issue of unlawful possession following the termination of a contractual relationship.

The court allowed the company’s appeal, overturned the acquittal at first instance, and convicted the respondent for unlawful possession of land registered in another’s name without consent.

It was established that the respondent had, since October 1, 2019, occupied premises in Larnaca registered in the appellant company’s name, without its consent. The occupation lacked any legal basis since the contractual relationship between the parties had already been terminated.

The Court of Appeal held that the District Court erred in acquitting the respondent on the ground that lack of consent was not proven, emphasising that the mere existence of a prior contractual relationship cannot establish consent to continued possession after termination.

Once a contract ends, consent automatically ceases, and any continued possession becomes unlawful.

The court further highlighted that the legislator’s intention in Article 281 is to prevent the abusive retention of land to the detriment of the registered owner. Possession without consent constitutes interference with the right of ownership and falls within the scope of criminal law.

Based on these findings, the court annulled the acquittal and entered a conviction against the respondent, affirming that prolonged possession without consent cannot be justified by reference to past lease arrangements or pending civil disputes.

Practical significance of the decision

This judgment constitutes a landmark in Cypriot jurisprudence. Firstly, it clarifies that unlawful possession of immovable property can be prosecuted not only civilly but also criminally, ensuring the prompt restoration of the owner’s rights.

Secondly, it strengthens the protection of property owners against the abusive conduct of former tenants who, until now, exploited the slow pace of justice to remain in premises without lawful entitlement.

The decision has a deterrent effect and is expected to significantly reduce the phenomenon of property retention after lease termination.

It introduces a new legal approach that places importance not only on civil remedies but also on the need for criminal protection of ownership.

The Court of Appeal’s decision of October 31, 2025 marks a decisive step toward eliminating a long-standing problem in Cypriot society, the unlawful possession of property by former tenants.

Through the correct interpretation of Article 281 of the Criminal Code, the court reaffirmed that ownership is not merely a civil right but a legally protected asset under criminal law. This strict approach enhances legal certainty and restores public confidence in the effectiveness of the justice system.