Eviction from an Agricultural Lease

In its judgement, decided on the 30 July 2021, in the names of J&C Properties Limited, bearing Maltese company registration number C 29114 vs. Nazzareno Pulis and Antonia Pulis, the Rural Leases Control Board (the “Board”), delivered by Magistrate Dr. Simone Grech, considered an agricultural landlord’s request for the eviction of its tenants following a decision of the Constitutional Court.

The facts of the case were as follows:

The claimant, J&C Properties Limited, is the owner of an agricultural field located in the limits of Haz-Zabbar, which field was being leased to the respondents, Nazzareno and Antonia Pulis. The lease of the land in question was governed by a lease agreement between the claimant and the ancestors of the respondents on 3 June 1982, and therefore subject to the pre-1995 rent laws.

The claimant filed this claim before the Board with the intention of receiving a judgement to enforce the eviction of the respondents from the agricultural land, on the following grounds:

  • That the respondents can no longer continue to occupy the land under the protection of the Agricultural Leases (Reletting) Act (Chapter 199 of the Laws of Malta) (the “Act”);
  • That the rent agreement of 1982 was terminated ex lege under Article 6 of the Constitution, Article 3 of Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta, and Chapter 99 of the Laws of Malta.

The legal position:

The primary legal issue raised in this case was the concern of a breach of fundamental rights under the Maltese Constitution. J&C Properties Limited claimed that the respondents had no right to benefit from the land in question and consequently should be evicted from the very land they were benefitting from. This claim was substantiated by a decision in favour of the claimant of the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction, on the 23 November 2020, in the names of the same parties; J&C Properties Limited (C 29114) vs. Nazzareno Pulis and Antonia Pulis and the Attorney General, number 133/2018JZM decided by Judge Emeritus Zammit McKeon, wherein it was decided that the respondents’ continuance to occupy the land in question was a breach of the fundamental human rights of the claimant. The Constitutional Court had previously ruled that the Act was in a clear breach of the Constitution of Malta and of the European Convention on Human Rights, as this Act was violating one’s right to peacefully enjoy their possessions, which right belongs to every natural or legal person. This judgement was also confirmed on separate appeals by both the Attorney General[1] and Nazzareno and Antonia Pulis[2] in the Constitutional Court.

The respondents pleaded to the Board that the constitutional decision on which the claim was based on was in fact res judicata, and so the Board should abstain from making any decisions in connection with the constitutional judgement. The respondents also reiterated that they had a valid lease title based on a contractual agreement with the claimant, and therefore had every right to retain occupancy of the agricultural land in question-based on the same lease agreement.

The Board’s considerations:

The Board considered the authenticity and validity of the lease agreement in connection with the decision of the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) in order to determine whether the respondents had any grounds for their arguments presented. The Board considered the Attorney General’s appeal of the first court’s decision and considered this argument to be the same argument being presented before the Board in this case, i.e. that the lease contract entered into in June of 1982 provided a mechanism under clauses 3 and 4 of the very same contract wherein the annual rent payable due to the claimant need not be renewed as long as three months’ notice is provided prior to the annual renewal of the rent and compensation due upon such termination was also agreed.  Therefore, the Attorney General argued that once there was such a mechanism in place to terminate the rent, the claimant did not need the authorisation and decision of the Board to stop the rent payments and reclaim the land in question, since the procedure for termination of the rent laid out in Clause 3 of the contract was all that needed to be followed. However, the Board concluded that to the extent that the Constitutional Court decided that the respondents were no longer protected under the Act insofar as those dispositions were concerned, it does not mean that if there is a written agreement about the length of the rent then the legal effects resulting from the constitutional decision no longer exist or should not be considered. On the contrary, it means that the Board has no choice but to give effect to the decision of the Constitutional Court in the sense that the respondents cannot continue benefitting from the agricultural laws provided for under the Act.

Therefore, the Board determined that the decision of the Constitutional Court would take precedence in effect over the contractual agreement originally entered into in 1982, and that the respondents could no longer benefit from the protection offered under the Agricultural Leases (Reletting) Act.

The Board’s decisions:

The Board determined that the respondents can no longer continue to depend on the protection once provided under the Act in order to maintain the occupation of the agricultural land, after the same laws which offered the respondents legal protection had been declared by the Constitutional Court as a violation of the claimant’s fundamental human rights.

Considering the above, the Board ruled that the respondents, Nazzareno Pulis and Antonia Pulis, could no longer continue to occupy the land and ordered that the rent be terminated by means of this judgement on the basis of the decision of the Constitutional Court delivered on 23 November 2020. The Board ordered the eviction of the respondents within 30 days of the judgement which therefore implied that the claimant should regain possession of the land upon effect of the eviction. The Board also determined that the respondents were responsible for the costs of the proceedings and ordered Nazzareno Pulis and Antonia Pulis to pay all the costs which resulted from the case. The Board did however abstain from declaring that, for each day that the land has been occupied by the tenants, damages have been caused to the claimant.


This article was authored by Alexia Cassar was first published in the Malta Independent. 


[1] Judgment reference number 132/2018/1

[2] Judgment reference number 133/2018/1