A landlord need not own the property to evict a sub-tenant

The Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) on 15 April 2026 dismissed an appeal by sub-tenants evicted from a bar and restaurant under the summary procedure. Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff held that the only relationship before the Rent Regulation Board was the lease between the parties, so a plea that the landlords did not own the premises was no defence. He also held that the board could decide eviction and liquidated damages in a single judgment.

The facts

In B.P. vs T.C., the applicants let a bar and restaurant to the respondents by a lease dated 14 November 2014. Clause 2 allowed the lease to end by written notice, with three months to vacate. Clause 4 bound the tenants to pay €100 a day as liquidated damages for each day they failed to leave once the lease ended.

The applicants gave notice on 11 November 2024, with a deadline of 11 February 2025. The respondents stayed. A judicial letter served on 5 April 2025 again called on them to leave and to pay the daily sum.

The applicants asked the Rent Regulation Board to decide the case without a full hearing, under article 16A of the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance (Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta). On 18 June 2025, after one sitting, the board authorised them to retake the premises within 21 days. It ordered the respondents to pay €12,700 for 127 days, and €100 for each further day of occupation.

The board found that the respondents' only plea concerned the applicants' title. It held that under article 1530 of the Civil Code a landlord need not own the property let. It also held that it could not reduce the agreed sum under article 1122(1), since there had been no partial performance.

What the court held

The respondents appealed on three grounds. They argued that their pleas deserved a full hearing, that the board had handed the premises to people a judgment had found were not the owners, and that the board had broken the rule in article 16A on the order of decisions.

On the first ground, the court held that the relationship before the board was between the applicants as tenants and the respondents as sub-tenants under the 2014 agreement. Any other agreement the applicants had with third parties, and any title the respondents claimed from the true owners, was res inter alios acta, a matter between others with no bearing on this case.

A tenant may bring eviction proceedings against another tenant, the court noted. It added that the respondents' title as sub-tenants is stronger and far less precarious than the mere tolerance they now said the owners had granted them.

On the second ground, the court found that the applicants had never claimed to own the premises or to hold a real right over them. That they themselves rented from third parties did not stop them letting to the respondents.

The court put it this way: "Il-mertu veru u proprju li kellu quddiemu l-Bord, kien marbut mal-ftehim li kellhom bejniethom il-partijiet" (The real merits before the board were tied to the agreement between the parties). Any dispute with third parties could be the subject of separate proceedings.

On the third ground, the proviso to article 16A requires the board to decide the eviction claim at the first hearing, before any other claim made with it. The court held that nothing in the law stops the board from deciding both in one judgment, provided it decides eviction first, as it did. The respondents could have raised a defence on the damages at the first sitting, and they did not.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay the costs.

Why it matters

A sub-tenant facing summary eviction cannot turn the case into a dispute about ownership. The board examines personal titles under the lease, not real rights, so a plea that the landlord does not own the premises will rarely meet the prima facie threshold. Any defence to a claim for liquidated damages belongs at the first sitting, because the board may decide it in the same judgment.

Where it sits

A lease is a personal obligation. Article 1530 of the Civil Code recognises leases granted by people who are not owners, and article 1550 lets one tenant sue to evict another. The court applied these rules together with the summary procedure in article 16A of Chapter 69.

The appeal judgment names no authority of its own. The board's judgment, which it reproduces, cited the Constitutional Court (20 July 2020) on the constitutional validity of the summary procedure. It cited the Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) (29 April 2005) on leases granted by non-owners.

On penalty clauses, the board cited Palace Gate Limited vs Shapes Company Limited (Court of Appeal, Inferior Jurisdiction, 6 April 2022). It also cited the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) (16 May 2025), which described a penalty for staying on after a lease ends as a deterrent.

Source

Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 169/2025/1, 15 April 2026.