The courts would allow minor works to a rented property but substantial changes will result in termination and eviction. This was held in a judgement delivered on 22 April 2026 by the Appeals Court presided by Judge Lawrence Mintoff. The case is of Josephine Anne sive Josanne Camilleri et noe vs Saviour Ellul et.
The appeal was lodged by Emanuel Ellul, one of the defendants, however, the applicants also filed a cross appeal.
The Rent Regulation Board had upheld the applicant’s claim that structural works were carried out without permission and without Planning Authority permits and as a consequence the lease had to be terminated.
The case concerns a property in Birżebbuġa owned by the applicants and occupied by the defendants for a rent of €200 per annum. The applicants claimed the property was left to decay and was in a very bad state. The board’s architect’s report shows that structural works were carried out and these were done without Planning Authority permits.
The defendants denied that the property is in a bad state, claiming the damage that exists is due to humidity. They painted the property regularly and all the works which were carried out were done with the authorisation of the owners.
The Rent Regulation Board’s legal considerations were that a tenant must use and care for leased premises with the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. The onus to show absence of fault lies with the tenant. Furthermore, although tenants generally may not alter the leased property without the landlord’s consent, jurisprudence recognises exceptions where changes are partial, not of great importance, do not change the lease’s destination, do not prejudice the owner’s rights, can be undone at lease end, or are necessary/useful for enjoyment. Works done without development permits or contrary to health/urban planning regulations prejudice the landlord’s rights and may amount to serious abuse justifying eviction. Illegal/unregularised structures that contravene health regulations weigh heavily against the tenant. For eviction based on lack of maintenance, the damage must be considerable; extensive enough to reduce the property’s value. Ordinary or repairable defects do not justify the extreme remedy of eviction.
The court found that two rooms were structural additions and illegal since they had no permit and were not compliant with health regulations. The tenant and spouse did not act as bonus paterfamilias and consequently prejudiced the owners’ rights.
Since the alterations were illegal and prejudicial, the court accepted the landlords’ claim and held eviction was appropriate. As to maintenance works, the expert reports identified some defects (cracked lintels, external stair damage, hairline cracks, open joints) but concluded these were not considerable and insufficient to warrant eviction. Therefore, the court rejected the eviction claim based solely on alleged inadequate maintenance.
The applicants’ broader request to be authorised to reoccupy the place immediately and to carry out remedial works at the tenant’s cost was not framed clearly and consequently, the court did not order, quantify or liquidate damages at that stage. Nonetheless, the primary request for eviction based on illegal alterations, was upheld.
The defendants asked the Appeals Court to overturn the board’s decision. The first ground of appeal challenged the board’s decision to order eviction on the basis of alterations to the property.
The defendants pointed out that when the rooms were built, Giuseppa Camilleri was the only owner. The development was small and not significant and it remained a residence. They insisted that the previous owner did give them consent to build additional rooms which were needed. They further insisted that the building of a kitchen did not require a building permit from the Planning Authority. Notwithstanding this, the irregularities may be sanctioned with today’s system. The defendants argued that the owners accepted the rent and therefore by implication accepted the works which were carried out. The present owners were not the owners when the property was rented out in 1977. The property was in a bad state and it was the defendants who converted it into a habitable property. Furthermore, the defendants argued that at the time when the works were carried out the country accepted illegalities. In fact, the Planning Development Act was enacted in 1992.
The applicant disagreed with what the defendants stated and denied the owner consented to the additional, unpermitted rooms. No written agreement existed and the applicant insisted she did not know why any permission would have been sought from the owner rather than the Planning Authority. The owners contended that the changes were neither minor nor necessary for enjoyment of the premises, and altered the use of the rented property—including moving a kitchen to a lower level and adding a bedroom. The owner further argued that the tenant tried to evade responsibility by refusing to regularise the works or to bear the costs, even three years after proceedings began.
The court reviewed the technical evidence and found that substantial brick structures with a temporary roof had been erected in the garden, effecting a structural change that shifted the kitchen’s level and created an additional bedroom. Jurisprudence recognises that small, partial or necessary alterations that do not change the tenancy’s purpose or prejudice the owner, may be permissible without forcible eviction. Here, however, the board-appointed experts concluded the works were undertaken without planning permission and contravened sanitary law.
The court agreed with the board that those findings met the threshold for ordering the tenant’s eviction. The tenant’s argument that widespread informal practice justified inaction was unsupported; nor did her admission that she had not sought permits or attempted to regularise the works assist her. Given the tenant’s failure to take steps to remedy the illegality and the objective technical findings, the court concluded the first ground of appeal was unfounded and dismissed it.
As to the second ground of appeal on the 60 days given for the defendant to vacate the property, the court recognised that it would be difficult for a person of a certain age to start a new life. Therefore, the court gave the defendant 90 days to leave.
This was the only change the Appeals Court made to the Rent Regulation Board’s decision, which was confirmed.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
