Recovery of property for own use

"Landlord must reasonably require the property and inconvenience is weighted between landlord and tenant"

The possibility of the owner of a house or apartment that is a statutory premises to recover its possession for own use and the eviction of the statutory tenant, is provided by virtue of article 11 (f) of the Rent Control Law, L .23/83. The need arises in the cases of repatriation of the owner who does not have any other house to reside or when the owner’s living conditions change, such as health, financial reasons, retirement or even when it is required to house a child or a dependent parent. It is known that there is a shortage of available houses or apartments due to demand, as well as the increase in rents, factors that burden and make it difficult for both the owner and the tenant. The Law sets out specific conditions that the landlord must meet in order to demonstrate that he reasonably requires recovery of possession of the premises and that the inconvenience he will suffer is greater than that of the tenant, if the Court does not issue an eviction order.

All the circumstances of each case are weighted and it is taken into account whether the tenant is displaced or suffering, whether there is another available and reasonably offered premises for the tenant's housing and whether the owner bought the property after the Law came into force. It is also a necessary requirement for the owner to serve a written notice to the tenant for eviction, at least one month in advance and to notify him of his demand. The amendment of the Law does not presuppose an obligation of the owner to find another premises for residence nor an obligation to compensate the tenant. There must be a genuine and present need which is definite and immediate on the part of the owner to repossess his premises for own use and not mere desire.

Related to the matter are the two decisions issued by the Limassol-Paphos Rent Control Court, dated 29.02.2024, in which the owners' demanded recovery of possession of their apartments by invoking own use. The Court accepted that in both cases the landlords were reasonably required to regain possession of their flat. In the one case, the reason was the financial difficulties they face and that they were no longer able to pay rent for the apartment they are forced to rent, since the rent is too high and the social pension, they receive is not sufficient, in addition to health problems that they face. In the other case, the reason was that the apartment was required for the owner's son's use.

The Court in its decisions indicated that the reasonableness of the request is not enough. Furthermore, it stated that it is necessary to weight the inconvenience of each party, i.e. the consequences that will be caused to each side, either by the issuance of the requested order of recovery of possession, or the refusal of the Court to grant the requested remedy, inconvenience which is related to the facts of the case, taking into account at the same time all the circumstances of the case specified in the Law. In essence, the Court ruled that the owner side must establish the reasonableness of issuing the order.

The tenants side characterized the request as pretentious, with the real intention of re-renting the property at a higher rent. It was also argued by the tenants that the issuance of the order would cause them more inconvenience than not issuing it, due to their difficult financial situation, medical conditions and their inability to find alternative housing at a reasonable rent.

After evaluating the facts, the Court determined that the owners were reasonably demanded the recovery of possession for their own use and that it was not a simple desire, but a genuine, immediate and definitive need. On the issue of inconvenience which was also the defence of the tenants, the landlords were contented to express their belief that the tenants can find alternative accommodation, while the tenants countered that they could not afford to find another accommodation.

The Court concluded that landlords had to present evidence that they had pointed to the tenants specific, available and reasonably rented housing for their relocation. Therefore, the absence of any evidence of what could be considered as a "comparable residence" was taken for granted, nor certainly, if such a residence was proven, if it was offered at a reasonable rent, and consequently the Court rejected the owners' petitions.