George Spiteri & Sons vs State — Rent Control Constitutional Claim Dismissed

Company's constitutional claim over protected tenancy failed entirely due to inability to prove ownership of the property for the relevant period.

First Hall of the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) · The Honourable Judge Dr Audrey Demicoli LL.D. · 30 April 2026

George Spiteri & Sons Limited (C 12936) filed a constitutional application in November 2024, claiming that the operation of the Rent Control Ordinance (Cap. 69) and Act X of 2009 violated their fundamental property rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. The property in question is No. 37, St Teresa Street, Tarxien, which had been rented to Paul Tonna for around 60 years at the extremely low annual rent of €185. The company sought a declaration of violation, monetary compensation, and an order for the tenant's eviction. The State Advocate contested the claim on multiple grounds, including that the applicant had not adequately proven ownership of the property. The tenant Paul Tonna, aged 73 and living solely on a pension, acknowledged the tenancy but argued he was not the appropriate respondent for any constitutional violation, which lay with the State. He also submitted that eviction would be disproportionate and unjust given his circumstances. The Court appointed a technical architect, Perit Michael Lanfranco, to assess the rental value of the property from 2003 to June 2021 at five-year intervals. However, the central issue that proved fatal to the claim was the applicant's failure to prove it was the lawful owner and landlord of the property. Documents produced showed that upon the division of the predecessor company George Spiteri (Successors) Ltd in 2003, the property was assigned not to the applicant (C 12936, registered 1991) but to a separate company, George Spiteri Limited (C 31028, registered 2003, subsequently struck off in 2011). No evidence of any subsequent transfer from that company to the applicant was ever presented. The Court dismissed the entire claim, holding that the applicant had failed to establish even the basic victim status required to pursue a constitutional rights violation. The Court took the opportunity to strongly criticise the trend of rent-control constitutional cases being filed carelessly, with minimal evidence, as if the consistent findings of unconstitutionality in prior cases automatically entitle any claimant to compensation without proper proof of their own legal standing and ownership.

The Court upheld the State Advocate's preliminary exception that the applicant company George Spiteri & Sons Limited failed to prove it was the owner of the property at 37 St Teresa Street, Tarxien. Consequently, all the applicant's claims were dismissed. Costs were awarded against the applicant company.

• In Maltese constitutional rent-control cases, applicants must prove not just that such laws are unconstitutional in general, but that they personally have the requisite victim status — including clear proof of ownership or landlord status for the relevant period.
• The fact that courts have consistently found rent-control legislation to violate fundamental property rights does not automatically entitle any landlord to compensation; each applicant must independently substantiate their claim with adequate evidence.
• Where a property is assigned to a specific company upon corporate division, a legally distinct company with a similar name cannot simply assert ownership without documentary proof of a subsequent transfer — the principle 'onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit' applies fully in constitutional proceedings.
• Constitutional courts in Malta have begun firmly rejecting sloppily prepared rent-control claims and awarding costs against applicants who file without sufficient evidence, signalling that these claims cannot be taken for granted.
• Recognition by the Rent Regulation Board that a party is a landlord under Cap. 69 does not automatically confer or prove ownership or landlord status for earlier periods in constitutional proceedings before the Civil Court.

Cap. 69 Laws of Malta (Rent Control Ordinance), Act X of 2009, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR (First Schedule Cap. 319), Articles 37 and 45 of the Constitution of Malta, Article 1531C Cap. 16 Laws of Malta

Report an error or outdated information