Minister John Dalli should be applauded for presenting in Parliament the Rent Reform Bill. His intention is to soften some of the injustices enacted by past governments for their omission in abrogating the state intervention in controlling tenancy rights, enacted as an emergency after the last war and followed by piecemeal efforts in later years.

However, ostensibly while eliminating past government interference John Dalli's suggestion is introducing an alternative replacement.

His intention to terminate selected tenancy rights in 20 years' time is a violation of the enjoyment of property rights acquired by legal means.

The following example illustrates the inhuman interference. In a contract of a lease agreement entered into in 1970, three adjacent properties in a dilapidated state were granted on lease with no end date but with conditions which clearly indicate that the lease was a perpetual one.

It was agreed that the rent is to be revised every five years in proportion to the rise in the cost of living and while it was agreed that the property rights could, at any time, be ceded in favour of third parties, in part or in toto, it was agreed that in all future sub leases the new tenants were obliged to pay the owners a laudemium equivalent to the then prevailing annual rent. The above example clearly indicates that the intention of the lease was a perpetual one and government should not interfere and impose an end term when the contracted parties had no such intentions.

There exists an abnormal misunderstanding that a contract of lease must have a limited time period, as otherwise it would be a substitution for a perpetual emphyteutical grant.

This is an erratic and perplexed conclusion.

In an emphyteutical concession the lessor transfers ownership of the property in favour of the lessee, while in a perpetual concession of a lease the ownership rights do not change hands.