THE legislation regarding the administration of Turkish Cypriot properties is of a temporary nature and its aim is their protection since they were abandoned due to the mass movement of Turkish Cypriots to the occupied areas as a result of the Turkish invasion. There was a need for the housing of Greek Cypriot refugees, and the protection of these properties, a situation which led to the establishment of Law 139/1991 governing their administration and protection and the appointment of their Guardian – the Interior Minister.
His competences include the lease or grant of licence for the use of the properties and it is his duty to care and serve the needs of the refugees. The acts and decisions of the Guardian serve public interest and come under the sphere of public law; hence, any aggrieved person is entitled to file a recourse before the Administrative Court.
However, the aforesaid legislation has certain weaknesses and should be amended or substituted. The need for the administration of the said properties by the Guardian constitutes an act of public law which was created due to the Turkish occupation, thus the law correctly states that the provisions of the Rent Control Law do not apply with regard to Turkish Cypriot properties.
The Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to try a dispute for rents in arrears or for the eviction of a tenant of Turkish Cypriot property, since such a dispute is of civil nature and it is tried by the District Court. A statutory tenant is protected regarding the possession of the premises he rents and his status is safeguarded, something which cannot apply in the case of Turkish Cypriot properties.
It is possible for a user of Turkish-Cypriot premises to sublet it and the tenant not to pay the rents; in such a case, there is a need for collecting the rents and the eviction of the tenant. Any application for this purpose before the Rent Control Court will not succeed due to lack of jurisdiction and the application will be sent to the District Court for trial. There will be a need for amendment of the pleadings, including a ground for trespass of the tenant and an order for him to cease trespassing and deliver its free and vacant possession.
It should be noted that the legal possession of the properties is kept by the Guardian and the licensee users are obliged to comply with the terms. The Supreme Court dealt with a case regarding the use of a Turkish Cypriot property in an appeal filed by the Guardian against the judgment of the Court of first instance dismissing his claim for re-possession of a shop due to the user being in possession without a right. The Guardian alleged that the user was in breach of a term of the licence and the Supreme Court held that the Law 139/1991 includes provisions of public order, which cannot be disregarded.
The physical re-possession by the Guardian does not constitute a prerequisite for the exercise of his competences under the law and the relevant provision of article 6(g) gives him legal possession of the premises without him having acquired its physical possession. The Court stated that the termination of the licence was lawful and the continuous occupation by the respondent after the termination was illegal and therefore, the Guardian was entitled to the remedies claimed for repossession and payment. The Guardian was entitled to file the action in accordance with article 6(b), which provides that he can institute or defend an action or recourse or take part in a procedure regarding Turkish Cypriot properties or reach a settlement or any other procedure which is beneficial to the property and its owner.
George Coucounis is a lawyer specialising in the Immovable Property Law, based in Larnaca, e-mail [email protected], www.coucounislaw.com, (tel.:- 24818288)
