Rent rise covers only the shares before the board

The Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) held on 4 March 2026 that a rent increase for an old residential lease can only be ordered for the shares of people entitled to the rent who are parties to the case. Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff confirmed a Rent Regulation Board decision awarding €720 a year for one co-owner's share, not €3,600 for the whole property. In D.C. vs S.S., bare owners could not claim the rent due to usufructuaries who stayed out of the case.

The facts

Four applicants, as co-owners, asked the Rent Regulation Board to raise the rent of a dwelling to 2% of its open-market value. The tenants paid €217.60 a year and used the dwelling as their ordinary residence. They pleaded that the applicants must prove title, that they were protected tenants under Chapter 69 and that they passed the means test.

The Housing Authority intervened. It argued that only those entitled to the rent could apply, and only for their share. The board found that the tenants passed the means test and accepted a unanimous valuation of €180,000, so 2% came to €3,600 a year.

The title evidence showed a split. Only one applicant held a full one-fifth share. Two others held the bare ownership of another fifth and a third held the bare ownership of a further fifth, while their mothers held the usufruct over those two shares.

Another fifth belonged to a co-owner who was not a party, and the last fifth belonged to one of the tenants. On 17 March 2025 the board ordered the tenants to pay €720 a year to the one applicant whose share was properly represented.

What the court held

The appellants argued that the lease is one and the rent unitary, so the rent had to be raised to €3,600 for the whole property. They relied on the definition of landlord in article 2 of the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance (Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta), which includes anyone holding title from the original landlord.

The court held that the definition was irrelevant. The lease fell squarely under the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance (Chapter 69), which contains no such definition.

Three of the four appellants held only bare ownership, while the usufructuaries, who are entitled to receive the rent, chose not to take part. The claim for €3,600 also failed because one of the tenants owns a share, and the board was right to leave that share out of the calculation.

The court accepted that the lease is a single one, but held: "Huwa minnu li l-kirja hija waħda u għandha titqies bħala ħlas unitarju, iżda l-Bord kien ikun qiegħed jonqos li kieku injora l-fatt li hemm terzi li mhumiex parti f’dawn il-proċeduri" (it is true that the lease is one and must be seen as a unitary payment, but the board would have failed had it ignored that there are third parties who are not parties to these proceedings).

Those third parties keep the right to file their own application for the increase due to them. Alongside the appeal, the appellants had asked for the interested parties to join the case as it stood. By a decree of 19 November 2025 the court refused, because an intervening party is neither plaintiff nor defendant and cannot reopen the evidence to make its own claim.

The court found nothing to censure in the board's decision or reasons. It dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay the costs of both instances.

Why it matters

Before filing for a rent review under article 4A of Chapter 69, a landlord's lawyer must map every share and every usufruct over it. Bare owners should bring in the usufructuaries, and co-owners should apply together, or the board will set a rent for only part of the property. A share held by the tenant will be left out.

Where it sits

Usufruct divides the benefit of property from its title: the usufructuary enjoys the thing and its fruits, including rent, while the bare owner holds title without that enjoyment. The 2021 amendments let a landlord of an old protected dwelling seek a rent of up to 2% of market value, subject to the means test under article 1622A of the Civil Code.

The appeal court decided on the articles alone and named no earlier judgment of its own. The board it confirmed had relied on the Constitutional Court (25 October 2023 and 12 July 2023) and on the First Hall of the Civil Court (30 January 2024). Those judgments held that while a usufruct lasts, the usufructuary, not the owner, holds the right to the rent and to complain of a breach.

The board also noted that the 2021 Act speaks of the "landlord" (sid il-kera), where the 2018 Act spoke of the "owner". The appellants built their argument on that wording, but the court held that a Chapter 69 lease is not governed by the Chapter 158 definition.

Source

Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 360/2024/1, 4 March 2026.