Judges order man's eviction, ruling he was not protected tenant at law

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a man who had resided with his mother until she died was not a protected tenant at law.

This judgment, confirming a sentence of the First Hall of the Civil Court, was delivered in the case filed by Paul Scicluna and his wife Winifred against Paul Caligari.

Mr and Mrs Scicluna had requested the first court to evict Mr Caligari from a house they owned in St Julians. They told the court the house had been granted by title of temporary sub-emphyteusis to Inez Caligari, Mr Caligari's mother, as her ordinary residence.

The grant of emphyteusis came to an end in May 1993, and, by operation of law, Mrs Caligari continued to occupy the house by title of lease. Mrs Caligari died in December 2005 and at the time of her death Mr Caligari resided with his mother.

Mr Caligari's contention that he was a protected tenant at law following his mother's demise was dismissed by the first court. He then lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Albert J. Magri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia. Mr Caligari told the court he was a protected tenant as he satisfied the two criteria established by law. These were that he was a family member of the tenant and that he had resided with his mother at the time of her death. According to Mr Caligari, the law protected family members who were children of a tenant or who were the tenant's unmarried brother or sister.

On appeal, the court declared that the case hinged upon the interpretation that was to be given to the provision of law quoted by the parties to the suit, namely the provisions of the proviso to section 2 of Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta. This section provided a definition of who was to constitute a tenant upon the death of a tenant. The law laid down that the definition was to include the children and any brother or sister of the tenant who were not married and who resided with the tenant at the time of his or her death.

The position of the parties was radically different.

Mr and Mrs Scicluna claimed that the definition of tenant did not include married children of a tenant. Mr Caligari submitted that the limitation as to being unmarried applied only to the brothers and sisters of the tenant. He added that the fact that he was separated (though not formally) from his wife, made the limitation of being unmarried inapplicable to him.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the first court which had ordered Mr Caligari's eviction from the house that had been occupied by his mother. There was no doubt that a 1990 judgment of the Court of Appeal in the names Curmi vs Galea had concluded that the limitation of being unmarried applied only to the brothers and sisters of a tenant and not to the tenant's children. However, two judgments delivered by the Court of Appeal (in its inferior jurisdiction) in 2003 and 2006 had concluded otherwise and had found that, in order to qualify as a tenant, the tenant's children had to be unmarried and residing with the tenant.

The fact that Mr Caligari was separated did not render him unmarried. In any event, any restriction at law on the landlord's right to retrieve his property had to be interpreted restrictively.

The court therefore confirmed the first court's judgment and ordered Mr Caligari to evict the premises within three weeks from yesterday.