When the Rent Regulation Board ruled that the tenant of Francis Grixti's garage should vacate the place after failing to pay rent, the owner assumed he would be able to make use of his garage.
He was wrong for the occupant left heavy machinery in the garage which had been used as a factory.
That left Mr Grixti with a serious problem of a pecuniary type. Having spent quite a sum to make the tenant vacate the property, Mr Grixti says he now cannot afford to pay for the removal and storage of the large equipment.
Destroying the equipment is out of the question because it is not his and doing so would be illegal. Moreover, Mr Grixti, who is house bound due to a respiratory condition, says he cannot even afford to initiate a court case in order to get the money he is owed in rent.
Mr Grixti's court battle started in 2000 when he filed a case before the Rent Regulation Board (RRB) asking it to evict the late Godfrey Ellul Sullivan from Connie Garage, in San Gwann.
Mr Grixti told the board he had rented out the garage to Mr Ellul Sullivan in 1982. In a contract made in the presence of a notary, the two men agreed that if Mr Grixti ever wanted to build above the garages, Mr Ellul Sullivan would vacate the premises until construction works were complete.
But when the time came for Mr Grixti to build the additional floors, in 1999, Mr Ellul Sullivan refused to get out unless Mr Grixti paid him Lm50,000.
Following this, Mr Ellul Sullivan stopped paying the rent.
In September, 2002, Mr Ellul Sullivan had testified he was a director and shareholder in Delicatessen Products Limited.
He had explained that vacating the garage, to allow construction work, would mean stopping production when he had about 20 employees.
Mr Ellul Sullivan, passed away in January 2003. The board appointed a curator to the case after none of Mr Ellul Sullivan's heirs came forward.
In a judgment handed down on May 27, 2004, the RRB upheld Mr Grixti's request and ordered the garage's eviction within a month.
Now that almost a year has passed since the judgment, Mr Grixti and his family are caught in a situation where they have the key to a property they cannot make use of because of factory-sized equipment.
Mr Grixti has already initiated proceeding for damages in the First Hall of the Civil Court. But, although he is owed over Lm30,000 in rent, he is arguing he has no money to start proceedings for payment. It would cost over Lm600 to open such a case and this excluding the lawyer's fees.
His daughter, Catherine, has been appearing in court representing her father.
"When I look at the way the justice system works I feel angry. I can't help but ask: What is a contract signed before a notary worth? The courts should have ordered the eviction on the strength of that contract. Besides, the law lays down that when a person does not pay rent on two consecutive occasions he should be kicked out.
"This was not a case that had to drag on for five years, during which the situation worsened for my family. Who is responsible for such situations?"
Lawyer Jacqueline Borg, from Buttigieg and Refalo Advocates, explained to The Times the legal reality of the situation.
Dr Borg explained that any rent case dated before 1995 is heard by the RRB whereas cases dated after that year are heard by the Magistrates' Court or the First Hall of the Civil Court, depending on the nature of the claim.
The jurisdiction of the RRB is outlined in the Reletting of Urban Property Ordinance which shows that although the board has the power to evict, it does not have to power to enforce the payment of rent or award damages.
In order to claim damages or rent owed one has to institute separate court proceeding before the First Hall of the Civil Court.
Each case comes with a fee that depends on the damages or rent owed. Figures obtained from court show that to demand Lm30,000 in damages or payment one has to pay Lm567 in registry fees and Lm50 to file the case, apart from Lm3 for each summons issued.
Dr Borg explained that if, despite an eviction order, a tenant does not move out of a property the next step would be to enforce the ruling by applying for a warrant. This costs Lm15.
If, once evicted, the tenant leaves items behind, the owner can inform the court and a court marshal will be sent to physically remove the items and place them outside.
Another option would be for the owner to deposit the items at the law court.
In Mr Grixti's case, where heavy machinery is involved, the court cannot remove the equipment or store it and therefore the owner must pay for the equipment's removal and find a place where to store it.
Since Mr Ellul Sullivan has passed away, the Grixtis can claim damages or payment by turning onto assets which the late Mr Ellul Sullivan possessed, such as the machinery itself or real estate.
If the machinery is worth something the owner can file an application in court (again against payment) proving that a court judgment had been handed down and stating that he is owed money but no payment was made. The court will then authorise a judicial auction.