Plea for eviction of supporters' club rejected

Mr Justice Philip Sciberras in the Civil Court has dismissed a writ filed by the owners of the property in Valletta leased to The Manchester United Supporters Club for the eviction of the club.

Paul Camilleri filed his writ in 1979 against the president and secretary of the club in their personal capacity and on behalf of the club.

In 2000 the case was continued by Camilleri's heirs, Mary Camilleri and Paolina Calafato.

Plaintiffs claimed that in 1977 they had leased part of the premises at 114, St Lucy Street, Valletta, for use as a club.

They claimed that defendants had failed to observe the contractual conditions of the lease and the court was requested to terminate the lease and to order defendants to evict the premises.

Defendants pleaded that the writ filed against them ought not to be upheld as they had always observed the contractual lease conditions.

The court referred to the report submitted by its legal expert, and noted that plaintiffs had claimed that defendants were not utilising the premises for the administrative purposes of a club, but were principally making use of it for purposes of entertainment, including a bar and restaurant.

Plaintiffs had also claimed that defendants were opening the premises on Saturday afternoons, on Sundays and on public holidays, and that they were remaining open after 8.30 p.m.

Mr Justice Sciberras declared that the ordinary courts had the jurisdiction to hear writs requesting the termination of a lease and that it was established at law that if the tenant did not utilise the leased premises according to the contract, then the landlord could request the termination of the lease.

The contract of lease between the parties contained no reservations or restrictions on the activities that could be carried out by the club within the leased premises, for all it stated was that the premises were being leased solely for the purpose of being used as a club.

As a result, the tenant could carry out any suitable activity within the premises, so long as it retained its nature as a club.

It was obvious, said the court, that the lease of premises as a club did not include the restrictive interpretation that the premises could only be utilised for administrative purposes.

The tenant had therefore a certain freedom regarding the activities carried out in the premises.

Case law of the local courts had also established that the definition of a club included that place where the club members could carry out their activities and meet for recreational purposes.

Mr Justice Sciberras added that it resulted from the evidence that Paul Camilleri had participated in the collection of signatures for the acquisition of the necessary permits from the authorities for the premises to be registered as a club.

He had also participated in the meetings with the sanitary authorities for the structural changes that were required for the bar to be installed, and used to frequent the bar.

The court further added that even if the lease agreement had contained an express prohibition regarding the use of the leased premises (which was not the case with the lease agreement entered into between the parties) any change in use that occurred with the knowledge or acquiescence of the owner did not amount to a contractual violation.