Damages to a leased property by the tenant

“Failure of a tenant to repair or maintain a property creates an actionable right for compensation to the landlord”

The lease of premises creates a reasonable concern for the owner for any damage or failure to maintain the premises by the tenant. Therefore, each tenancy agreement contains a relevant term that imposes an obligation on the tenant to deliver the premises upon the expiration or termination of the tenancy in the condition in which it was received, excluding fair wear and tear. It also imposes an obligation on him to protect the property from damage that may be caused by him, the members of his family, representatives and invitees, as well as a parallel obligation to repair them without delay. Both the tenancy agreement and article 27 of the Rent Control Law 23/1983, regulate the obligations of the parties, owner and tenant, including the statutory tenancy and the right of restoration.

The jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court derives from the provisions of section 4(1) of the Law which refers to the establishment of Rent Control Courts, which resolve the disputes referred to them that arise on any matter arising within the framework of the application of the Law, including any incidental or supplementary matter. There are Courts of this special jurisdiction in all the cities, Nicosia, Limassol, Paphos, Larnaca which also includes the free areas of Famagusta.

Rent Control Court Decision

The President of the Limassol - Paphos Rent Control Court, in his decision that issued in application K24/2021, dated 30.10.2024, examined the claims of a lady owner, who claimed against the tenant and his two guarantors’ compensation of €109.715 for the cost of repairing damages to her house, €20,000 for the loss of income for the time that the damage repair works would take for 10 months, plus exemplary damages and expenses. The house was in a medium condition at the start of the tenancy and the owner gave the tenant the sum of €12,235 to carry out renovation and restoration works, making it fully functional.

Over the time, the tenant and his guarantors did not pay the rent due, despite the fact that the owner is a pensioner with debt and had her main source of income, pension and rent. Although the owner secured a judgment on the rent due and an order to recover possession, there was no compliance and she was able to take possession of her house by issuing a writ of possession.

When the owner picked up the property, it appeared abandoned and was without doors and windows, the sanitary ware, the solar water heater, the water tank, the iron gates and the protective railings were removed, as well as extensive damage was caused to the floors and the walls and part of the roof was destroyed.

The position of the tenant and one of the guarantors was that when the Court at the eviction proceedings decided that they were not entitled to any amount of compensation for renovations/improvements to the house, they knowingly disobeyed the Court's order and took the Law into their own hands, seizing everything of value and at the same time rendering useless everything they left behind.

Court Decision

The Court decided that their actions constituted a contractually impermissible and radical intervention on the building and its fixtures and fittings, in violation of the basic principle of law, whatever is built on the land, stays on the land. The cost of the restoration works was claimed by the owner without having been paid yet. The Court held, however, that the amount can also be awarded in the form of general damages, when their non-performance occurs for reasons beyond the victim’s control, such as in this case, the owner’s undisputed financial hardship. Consequently, this amount could be awarded in favor of the owner in the form of general damages and given that expert testimony was given and was not substantially disputed, it issued a relevant decision against the tenant and his guarantors for the amount of €109.715.

In relation to the award of exemplary damages, the Court considered the case appropriate, taking into account the amount of damage caused, the brutality of the acts as captured in the relevant photographs, as well as the arrogant attitude of the guarantor during the hearing. Classifying the behavior of one of the guarantors as one of the worst cases of this nature, the Court issued a judgment against him for the sum of €10.000 as exemplary damages. In addition, it issued a judgment against the tenant and his guarantors for the amount of €20.000 for loss of income, as compensation to the owner, for the time required to restore the house to a functional condition, plus expenses.