This case involved the building of a structure by a person claiming to be a lessee. However, the case had a very particular background.

The plaintiff was the owner of the property in question and, because he was an elderly man, he had a helper to look after him. The helper was the defendant in the case. This helper was dismissed by the agency for the care of the elderly by whom she was employed three months after she started caring for the plaintiff. However, she then agreed with the plaintiff to look after him voluntarily. No compensation was agreed upon and the defendant was never paid for services rendered.

The two parties both agreed that instead of payment, the defendant was allowed to live with the plaintiff in the house together with her family without payment. About a year after they had been living there the defendant proposed being given a title of lease on the plaintiff’s house to make them feel secure. At first, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was good and although he did not need much care, he enjoyed the company of the defendant and accepted her and her family in his house.

He felt sorry for the defendant because she was in debt. He said he lent her money and also bought her a car. The defendant denied all this and said that her family had never had financial problems. The Court stated that it seemed that after some time, the defendant took over the plaintiff’s house and acted as though it belonged to her. Instead of company and peace, the plaintiff was restricted to the use of certain rooms and also had to put up with the children’s noise and loud music.

The defendant also brought five dogs into the house. It was alleged that the family was doing its utmost to bother the plaintiff. The defendant allegedly made the plaintiff’s life such a misery that he had to leave and go and live somewhere else for three years. Occasionally he used to visit his house until, finally, he was accepted at an old people’s home where he lived for a year until he passed away.

The defendants built a structure in the yard of the house without the permission of the owner or a permit from the Malta Environment and Planning Authority. The owner, now deceased and represented by his heirs, demanded the issue of a warrant of prohibitory injunction and requested that the Court:

a. Declare and decide that the structure in question was abusively built illegally against the rights of the plaintiff;

b. Order the defendant to remove the existing illegally built structure as mentioned above;

c. Authorise the owner to remove the said structure at the expense of the defendant and under the supervision of a nominated architect. Expenses should include the prohibitory injunction against the defendant.

The court took into consideration the plea of the defendant, who essentially stated that:

d. some work had been carried out, but this was done with the consent of the plaintiff;

e. The work had been necessary;

f. the work carried out was beneficial both to the building and also to the owner;

g. For these reasons, she should not be condemned to the payment of expenses.

The court considered all the claims brought forward.

In this case the plaintiffs, as heirs of the deceased, demanded that the defendant remove the room that she had built in the house. The defendant alleged that she had built the structure with the consent of the plaintiff, but the court was not convinced that the plaintiff gave his consent. It resulted in fact that not only did the plaintiff disapprove, but informed his nephew and asked him to contact his lawyer. The plaintiff demanded a warrant of prohibitory injunction which stopped the defendants from building the room.

The defendant claimed that she enjoyed a title of lease on the property in question, in which case she did not need permission from the owner for alterations to the property.

The Court considered that although admittedly, it is correct to state that the law does not allow the tenant to carry out any alterations on a leased property without the owner’s consent, case law has stated that the tenant can carry out alterations on the property rented to him without the owner’s consent only if the alteration

1. is insignificant;

2. does not change the designation of the property;

3. does not prejudice the owner’s rights;

4. is useful or necessary to improve the property;

5. allowed that the property be restored to its original state.

However, the Court noted that, for the law to apply, it first had to be established that a title of lease over the property in question actually existed. The Court stated that a document had been presented as evidence of proof of the lease. However, it was not convinced that an actual contract of lease between the parties in question existed.

Neither was the Court convinced of the deceased’s desire to make such a contract. The document presented to the Court revealed that, although it was clear that the deceased wished to confer rights upon the defendant in relation to the property, there was never an actual lease agreement between them.

The deceased allegedly merely quoted a sum of rent of Lm200 per annum which was not a reality, because it was never actually paid. The defendant claimed that she used to deposit the rent at the Law Courts. However, the date that such payments allegedly started remained unknown. The fact remained that the plaintiff never received any rent and neither did he want rent to be paid to him. The arrangement was merely that the defendant would render services to the plaintiff in exchange for living, together with her family, at no cost as regards rent, electricity, water bills, etc., in the same house.

The Court stated that, in its belief, the document constituting the rent agreement was fictitious and was agreed upon by the plaintiff under pressure. It was clear that there was never a real agreement between the parties regarding the payment of rent. The real compensation for the accommodation was by virtue of the services rendered by the defendant. It is a principle that in cases where services are rendered, this arrangement does not in itself provide a right over any relative property.

The fact that the defendant paid for electricity in last few years did not alter the fact that the defendant did not, in fact, hold a title of lease over the said property. Since the document was fictitious, the Court claimed that the defendant could hence not benefit from the findings of previous judgements which stated that, in certain cases, alterations by lessees were acceptable. Hence, the defendant’s claim that the structure was useful to the property was irrelevant. The property in question belonged to the deceased and now to his heirs and nobody had a right to interfere with it.

For the above reasons, the Court upheld the claims of the plaintiffs and ordered the defendant to demolish the structure. The Court further allowed the plaintiffs to demolish the structure at the expense of the defendants, should the latter fail to comply with the Court’s orders.