Unjust rent law should be repealed

Government has again promised to reform the rent law. Will this actually happen or will it founder again as has happened in the last couple of decades? This restrictive law that amends the ordinary rent law in the Civil Code was introduced in Malta in the 1930s.

The British colonial administration ordered a census of all property in Malta. Owners had to declare their property and the rent derived from it and the notional rent that could be obtained from unleased property.

The colonial administration imposed a tax of five shillings in the pound, that is one fourth of the rental value. The census is preserved at the Public Registry as the Rent Register.

The rent was controlled according to the register and is still so controlled. This restriction applied to all buildings, whether living accommodation, commercial and others.

The rent of property that could be rented in 1914 was fixed at the rent, real or notional, in that year increased by 40 per cent - to this day it is still so pegged.

The greatest insult to landlords is that by this infamous law the contract of rent has been changed from a personal right of using other people's property (like renting a car) into a perpetual right similar to ownership, which may be inherited, denying the owner from ever recovering his property, even for his own purposes.

Let me give an actual example. The tenant is an old woman nearing her end. A married daughter who lives in her own house moves in with her mother so that she could eventually pay a pittance in rent and dispose of her own house. This blatant robbery has been sanctioned by case-law.

To continue with the same example, a son or daughter of the landlord (what a misnomer!) wants to marry but is debarred by court judgments from living in that house. The alternative is to borrow €200,000 or so from a bank at high interest and spend the better part of their lives in debt, with all the social and family repercussions which this involves.

So what was meant as a temporary measure has been retained for 70 years by our legislators, who seem to be oblivious to its gross injustice.

This is a despicable situation, and ruinous to newly married couples who need housing and are finding it prohibitive to raise a family.

The renewed promise to abolish the restrictive rent law is ominous in expressly contemplating the consolidation of present tenancies. It is disgusting that the landlord is being deprived of the possibility of ever recovering his property, compounding the injustice.

A timeframe should be set for the reform's speedy implementation and such 'tenants' should be ordered to vacate the premises within a short time. In such cases it would be a relief to young couples to know they could live in a home belonging to them or their parents and resell the property they had bought at the cost of such a heavy financial burden.