A court today ordered the eviction of tenants from a requisitioned house after ruling that the deprivation of use of property by the owner for no other reason than to benefit a private individual could not be considered as being in the general interest.

The judgment, the first of its nature, was given in acase institued by Gerald, Neville, Alfred and Winston Montanaro Gauci and their sisters Nicholette Zammit Lupi and Marie Jose Sultana against the Housing Authority and Carmelo Caruana.

They told the court that a house in Rabat that had belonged to their late father had been broken into and illegally occupied by Mr Caruana and his family in 1987.

When they filed a court case for the eviction of Mr Caruana in 1988, the government authorities issued a requisition order in respect of the house and allocated it to the Caruana family.

The owners argued that the action on the part of the authorities was in violation of their rights to enjoyment of property and they requested the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to find in their favour and to award them compensation while returning their property.

Mr Justice Azzopardi in his judgement declared that the right to enjoyment of property was protected by the European Convention of Human Rights.

The state was however entitled to deprive owners of the use of their property in the general interest.

However , the deprivation of use of property for no other reason than to benefit a private individual could not be considered as being in the general interest.

It was noted that the European Court had, twice, found against Malta in similar circumstances.

In the case "Ghigo vs Malta" the European Court had concluded that the property owner's rights had been violated when he was deprived of his property for 22 years and had received €55 per annum by way of rent. Inthe current case the Montanaro Gauci family were receiving €35 per annum by way of rent.

Mr Justice Azzopardi declared that despite previous judgments of the local courts which had delivered a different interpretation fo the law, he was going to apply the principles stated by the European Court. He therefore concluded that the Montanaro Gauci family's rights to enjoyment of their property had been violated and awarded them €8,000 by way of compensation.

When referring to the owners' request to have their property returned to them,the judge declared that to date the European Court had not ordered such a provision. However, the local courts were certainly entitled to order that property reverted to its owners.T he court was furthermore duty bound to find in favour of the owners since, if they were not given their property back they would continue to incur damages for which the tax payer would have to make good.

Mr Justice Azzopardi therefore ordered the Caruana family to vacate the property within three months.