Tenant who neglects upkeep bears the extraordinary repair

The Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) held on 13 May 2026 that a tenant cannot make the owner pay for extraordinary repairs that became necessary through her own failure to carry out ordinary maintenance. Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff dismissed the tenant's appeal from the Rent Regulation Board. He also held that the appeal was open only on points of law.

The facts

In Z.L. vs C.C., the tenant lived in an old house. In 1995 she had acquired the remaining 19 years or so of a temporary emphyteusis, a long grant against ground rent, taking the house as it stood. In 2013 the emphyteusis was converted into a lease under the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance (Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta).

In 2021 she asked the board to order the owners to repair the front and rear façades and to pay damages. The owners argued that the damage was her responsibility and counterclaimed for eviction over unpaid rent.

The board's technical members found that the front façade needed ordinary maintenance. The rear façade needed extensive restoration, estimated at €25,000, which they attributed to years of neglect. On 27 February 2025 the board rejected both the tenant's demands and the owners' counterclaim.

What the court held

The owners argued that the appeal raised only questions of fact. The court agreed that article 24(1)(b) of the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance (Chapter 69) allows an appeal from the board in proceedings of this kind only on a point of law.

Most of the tenant's appeal, which quoted more than six pages of evidence, asked the court to weigh the facts again. The court held that it could not do so.

Two points of law remained. On the first, all parties accepted that under article 1505 of the Civil Code an emphyteuta must keep the property in good repair and carry out all repairs, ordinary and extraordinary.

On the second, the tenant argued that after the conversion article 1531E of the Civil Code put extraordinary maintenance on the owner. The board had held that the same article obliged her to carry out ordinary external maintenance. It had found that the damage to the rear façade came from her lack of attention over the years.

The court held that the board read the law correctly. Her duty of ordinary maintenance ran from the day she took possession, and during the emphyteusis she also carried the extraordinary repairs. Having failed in those duties, the court said, she “ma tistax tapprofitta ruħha mill-fatt li minħabba n-nuqqas tagħha, is-sitwazzjoni aggravat ruħha” (cannot take advantage of the fact that, through her own failure, the situation has grown worse).

The front façade needed only ordinary maintenance, which fell on the tenant in any case. The appeal raised no ground on the counterclaim, so the court did not consider it. It ordered the tenant to pay the costs of the appeal.

Why it matters

A tenant whose emphyteusis became a lease cannot rely on article 1531E to pass on a large repair bill if the damage grew from her own neglect of ordinary upkeep. A lawyer appealing a Rent Regulation Board decision must frame each ground as a point of law. An appeal built on a fresh reading of the evidence will not be heard.

Where it sits

The case sits where two regimes that students learn separately meet: the obligations of the emphyteuta in the Civil Code and the protected lease that Chapter 158 created from expiring temporary grants.

Under article 1507, where a large expense is needed during a temporary emphyteusis, a court may order the owner to contribute. The board noted that the tenant never made that claim, and that the damage to the rear façade had been developing for a long time.

The board relied on the First Hall of the Civil Court (29 October 2003), which applied a Court of Appeal judgment of 21 November 1994. Both hold that an emphyteuta who takes a property with defects must not only stop it getting worse but also repair it. The appeal court named no authority of its own and decided on the articles.

Source

Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 214/2021/1, 13 May 2026.