Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,450 of 10 July 2015
01/01/2015
Notice 1166
1166By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on the 24th June 2015, on the application of HSBC BANK MALTA PLC, Thursday, 6th August, 2015 at noon (12.00 p.m.) has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION,to be held on the first floor, Courts of Justice, Republic Street, Valletta, of the following property:
Half undivided share of a house of character numbered two (2), in alley number one (1), in Triq Tumas Dingli, Mosta, free and unencumbered, with all its appurtanences, including the airspace, valued at one hundred and fifty one thousand, four hundred and fifty Euro (€151,450.00).
The said tenement is the property of MIZZI DUNCAN PETER.
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the Judicial Sales Act 17/2015.
Rudolph Marmarà
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1167
1167By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on 16th June, 2015 on the application of ABELA GRAZIELLA, Wednesday, 23rd September, 2015 at half past ten in the morning (10.30 a.m), has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION to be held at GARAGE NO ONE (1), IX-XWIEKI, LIMITS OF ĦAL GĦARGĦUR of the following items seized from the property of KHODIR ROMINA.
Vehicle of the make toyota Dyna of white colour with registration number MGC 471, Cutter of the make Narex, Tile Guillotine and other objects.
The objects will be sold as described in the Judicial Sales Act 15/2015.
Rudolph Marmarà
For the Registrar of Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1168
1168IT IS hereby notified that in virtue of the powers conferred on it by Section 257 of the Civil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 3rd day of July, 2015, and this after a written plea Numbered 87/15, Ordered:
The correction of the Act of Death of Grace Pace Gasan, bearing number 1747 of the year 1974, in the column entitled “Name and Surname of parents, and whether living or dead”, the incorrect surname “GRIXTI” pertaining to the deceased’s mother must be cancelled and replaced with the correct surname:- “ABELA”.
Janet Calleja
For the Registrar Court of Revision of Notarial Acts
Notice 1169
1169By means of a decree of the 22nd May 2015 given by the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of the judicial letter number 1236/15, in the names Ta’ Natu Limitedvs MZ Supermarket Mosta Limited, ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent company in terms of Article 187(5) of Chapter 12.
In the First Hall of the Civil Courts
To MZ Supermarket Mosta of Triq il-Kostituzzjoni, Mosta and/or Savoy Terrace, Sir Hilderbrand Oakes Street, Gzira GZR 1515.
By means of the present Ta’ Natu Limited (C-8167) of Doris, Oratory Street, Naxxar, makes reference to the lease agreement dated 16th December 2014, that by means of which it leased the following premises:
a) The Supermarket known as “Ta’Natu Supermarket” (including the property formerly known as ‘Stop and Save’) situated in Constitution Street, Mosta having a separate access from Triq l-Għollieq, Mosta, shown hatched with diagonal lines on the annexed plan marked Document A1, in its present state and condition tale quale, without the relative roofand airspace (hereinafter referred to as Phase 1; and
b) The ground-floor level comprising an intermediate floor forming part of a block of building as yet unnamed and without official number situtated in Triq l-Għollieq, Mosta, together with an unloading area situated at street level in Triq l-Għollieq and four (4) parking space at street level and sixty six (66) car parking space situated at levels minus one (-1), minus two (-2) of the said block of building, altoghether as shown coloured in blue on the annexed plans marked respectively as DocumentsA2, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7which block of building is still to be constructed and is to be completed in shell form by the Lessor at his own expense, hereinafter referred to as Phase 2.It remains understoodthat Phase 2 shall not include levels minus three (-3), minus four (-4), minus five (-5), the second (2nd) and third (3rd) floor levels, the penthouse level, the roof and airspace of the block of building of which Phase 2 forms part or the other areas of the said building, as shown on the said plans, and which are not coloured in blue;
c) The apartment, internally number five (5) formerly numbered three (3), situated at second floor level, forming part of a block of apartments known as Joanne Flats, situated in Constitution Street, Mosta, and which apartment is situated on the left hand side as one looks at the said block of apartment from Constitution Street, without the relative airspace, and enjoyuing a perpetual right of use, transferrable to third parties, of the common parts of the said block including the drains and drainage system, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Apartment’.The Lessee shall have the right to place a water tank and air-conditioning compressors on the roof of the aforementioned block and should the owners of the airspace of the said block build further storeys, the said ownersshall be obliged to move the said compressor or compressors and the water tank onto the newly built roof, at their expense.
The interpellant company solicits you so that within two days you pay the amount of€301,075 representing as for the amount of €47,648.40 as rent due including the Value Added Tax for the period between the 1st April 2015 and 30th June 2015 that was due on the 1st April 2015, and as for the amount of€58,426.85 representing the water and electricity consumption on you part from the said premises, which consumption has to be paid by you in terms of the said lease agreement, and as for the amount of €195,000 then debt that you undertook to pay in terms ofthe said lease agreement.
In default, the interpellant shall furtherly proceed in terms oflaw, without further notice.
With costs and legal interest till the day of effective payment.
ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1170
1170IT IS hereby notified that by an application filed in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Voluntary Jurisdiction on the 12th of June 2015 (Application number 59/2015JVC) Notary Dr Josianne Mifsud LLD pro et noe, requested the opening of the SUCCESSION ofMichael Cini, pensioner, son of the late Ġorġ Cini and Giuseppa née Sultana, born and who used to residein Xagħra, Gozo, and where he died on the 29th of March 2015, intestate, and which opening of succession is to be made as one third (1/3) undivided share each in favour of Mary Carmen sive Marlyn Ferretti, Rinaldo Cini and Notary Dr Josianne Mifsud.
Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns.
Voluntary Jurisdiction
Dorianne Cassar
For the Registrar Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1171
1171By means of a decree given on the 20th June 2013, by the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Plaza Centres p.l.c. vs Candynavia Limited, application number 38/15MV, the following publication weas ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Candynavia Limited, in terms of Article 187 (3) et seq. of Cap 12.
By means of a Notice of hearing of a cause issued by the Registry Superior Courts, on Friday 3 rd July 2015, the application in the names Plaza Centres p.l.c. vs Candynavia Limited, application number 38/15 MV, was appointed for hearing on Monday 6th July 2015 and put off to the 23rd July 2015 at 10.30 a.m.
Respondent: No. 5, 13, Xatt il-Palm, Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq, Naxxar, NXR 5181.
Sterling Building, Enrico Mizzi, Gżira 1481.
Level Zero (0) Shop No 3, Plaza Shopping Centre, Bisazza Street, Sliema, SLM 1640.
ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1172
1172By means of a decree given, on the 24th April 2015, by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) in the records of the Appeal, in the names Rose Psaila et vs Stephen Vella, Application number 93/07, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Stephen Vella, in terms of Article 187 (3) et seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application, filed, in the Court of Appeal, (Inferior Jurisdiction) in the names Rose Psaila, Georgina Tabone, Doreen Barbara, Josephine Zammit, Jonathan Zammit and Andrew Psaila as curator of his sister Carmena Psaila, in virtue of a decree given by the Civil Court (Voluntary Jurisdiction Section) with number 567/2007 and by decree of the 21st December 2010, the records of the cause were transferred on to the name of the same Rose Psaila, Georgina Tabone, Doreen Barbara, Josephine Zammit, Jonathan Zammit and Andrew Psaila and Emmanuele Psaila, Grazio Psaila and Alfred Psaila, following the death of Carmela Psaila vs Stephen Vella, on the 9th October 2014, all the applicants Rose Psaila, Georgina Tabone, Doreen Barbara, Josephine Zammit, JonathanZammit, Andrew Psaila, Emmanuele Psaila, Grazio Psaila and Alfred Psaila respectfully pleaded;
By means of the original application, the applicants today appellants premised thus;
1. That the respondent takes on lease from the applicants the premises with the name ‘Maria Dolores’ in Triq Ġużè Galea, Qormi, as an aluminium workshop and this towards the rent of € 850.22, payable every six months in advance.
2. That the respondent is making use of the said premises for aluminium works without the permissions/ licenses of the competent Authorities.
3. That furthermore the respondent is making use of the same premises for the purpose of garaging private vehicles and thus changed the destination of the premises leased to him by the applicants.
4. .....omissis.....
5. That thus the respondent violated the lease conditions and is thus occupying the premises without a valid title at law.
6. .....omissis.....
Thus the applicants asked for the eviction of the respondent and the taking back of the premises.
The respondent replied thus:
1) That in the first place the applicants are to prove their title.
2) That the applicant’s demands are to be rejected with costs since in the first place, it is not the case that he cannot use the premises for the purpose leased to him as shall be proved to this Board, in the second place it is not the case that the premises is being used for the garaging of private vehicles and the applicant did not change the destination of the premises leased to him and in the third place the rent is all paid.
3) .....omissis.....
4) Saving other pleas.
That in virtue of a judgement of the 2nd October 2014, the Rent Regulation Board, decided this cause by rejecting the applicant’s demands with the costs of the cause against them.
That the appellants felt aggrieved by this judgement and are humbly filing this appeal therefrom.
.....omissis.....
That the grievances are clear and manifest and consist in the following.
The first grievance is that it is evident from the reading of the judgement appealed that the Rent Regulation Board completely failed to take note of the submissions presented by the applicants.
.....omissis.....
The fact that the Board did not take care of the applicant’s note of observations and other records before it emerges from the fact that the Board reached conclusions about the facts which were grossly mistaken which facts were clearly pointed out in the note of observations. These mistakes brought about a judgement which was not substantially just.
.....omissis.....
When the Board analysed the affidavit of Alfred Psaila it concluded thus, from this affidavit it emerges that the premises leased to the respondent by the applicants’ mother as a bare premises for use as an aluminium workshop in such a way that the respondent was responsible to obtain the necessary permits and the same respondent had on various occasions informed the applicants and their mother that he obtained the relative permits. It happened however that some months before this cause was filed the applicants noted that the respondent was operating without the necessary permits from the authorities, and regarding this he was subject to criminal procedures where he was found guilty according to judgements exhibited in the records. Regarding this deposition it is good to point out that according to Alfred Psaila who resides in the premises overlying that in question after the respondent was found guilty for the third time he did not come anymore to the premises and did not work anymore from there and is not making any use of it’.
...........omissis...........
The second conclusion of the Board which confirms also that the Board did not see the applicants’ note of observations and other records and thus it is not correct also to be stated that the Board saw all the records of the cause.
‘Preventively it is to be stated that in the records there were also presented seven affidavits which were identical to that of Alfred Psaila and this cannot but be observed by the Board.’
.....omissis.....
That this part of the judgement appealed shows that the Board even failed to compare the affidavit of Alfred Psaila with that of the other applicants.
.....omissis.....
Thus the appellants are aggrieved by the fact that the affidavit of Alfred Psaila on which the Board relied to reach its decisions was discredited and broke down to pieces simply due to these mistaken affirmations of the Board in so far as the Board concluded that this Affidavit was 1) identical to seven other affidavits presented by the applicants and that this affidavit brought about irreconcilable contradiction regarding the facts.
.....omissis.....
Regarding this grievance it also emerges that this Board did not see the applicants’ note of submissions.
.....omissis.....
Even the subsequent affermation of the Bord amount to a wrong conclusion in this regard referably to the cross-examination of Georgina Tabone.
That with all respect the conclusion regarding this point of law should have been otherwise. What Georgina Tabone stated, was not said by her because some one told her to say it, but what Georgina Tabone said, on this point amounts to hearsay.
.....omissis.....
It is also interesting how the respondent did not carry out the cross-examination of Alfred Psaila.
.....omissis.....
The conclusion which emerges from the affidavit of Alfred Psaila which is not contradicted since the witness was not cross-examined and the lack of credibility imputed to Alfred Psaila is neutralised by what is stated above. Thus now the Court wants to carry out the exercise of revising the judgement appealed in the light of all these findings and grievances of the appellants.
From the proof and even from the judgement appealed it results that:
a) the premises was leased as an aluminium workshop.
b) till this day the premises is still without the necessary permits.
c) the respondent...omissis.. states that he was obstructed from obtaining this permit by the applicants’ mother when she did not give her consent and thus he did not do anything and continued to operate without a permit.
d) the respondent in the year 2006, had his application which he submitted to MEPA for the issuing of a permit refused.
e) The respondent vacated this premises and in the first place he stated that he was using it as a store and that subsequently he did not continue to use it.
That the conclusion of the Board was that the applicants did not act in good faith.
The Board concluded thus:
‘The applicants would have been more credible had they brought forward proof to grant their consent for the attainment of the permits and thus the Board tends to believe the respondent that he did everything to obtain the consent of the applicants’ predecessor in order that the permit be issued and that she refused capriciously although the premises was leased for commercial use.
.....omissis.....
It also results and in each case that the respondent did not bring forward any proof that the owner’s consent was effectively necessary in the eighties so that the lessee obtains such a permit, required by the respondent.
.....omissis.....
That the respondent did not produce any document which shows that such consent was necessary.
.....omissis.....
That perhaps this Court shall ask whether the premises could be used for the purpose it was leased, why the applicants’ mother leased it for a commercial purpose? The reply is that as it pacifically results that the applicants’ mother made it clear that she was granting on lease a premises without a permit for commercial use and for the attainment of this permit the respondent was responsible.
That with all respect this Board reached conclusions which cannot be reconciled when it stated thus;
‘Although it fell upon the applicant that no use was being made from the premises, the respondent showed by a copy of the receipts that infact manufacturing work was being made from the premises in question. To this the appellants respectfully submit that if the use being made was illegal, as confirmed by the Courts of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Judicature, in the three judgements it delivered and accepted by the same respondent then this could not be considered as use, as otherwise the Court would be sanctioning a state of illegality’.
That this paragraph quoted from the judgement appealed and namely ‘ Although it was due to upon the applicant that no use was being made from the premises, the respondent showed even with a copy of the receipts that infact manufacturing work was being made from the premises in question shows further wrong conclusions on the part of the Board..omissis..That is the respondent in his affidavit had accepted that he is not using the premises for manufacturing work however the Board concluded that infact manufacturing work was being carried out.
....omissis....
The Board continues thus; ‘It is evident that what gave rise to this dispute here devolved is nothing but a strategem so that the applicants take back the premises pacifically leased to the respondent since 1986.’
....omissis....
It seems that the Board avoided the fact that by his actions the respondent was seriously prejudicing the applicants’ rights on the premises who disovered that he did not have a permit years after the respondent had operated from this premises.
....omissis....
The Board had to delve into the matter whether;
a) it was true that he was using the premises as a store.
b) whether the use as a store was violating the conditions of the lease.
c) whether this version is compatible with the reply brought forward by the respondent.
The Board did nothing of this. It is thus due to the Court to carry out this exercise.
What proof did the respondent bring forward that he was using the premises as a store? Nothing ....omissis.... If the respondent was prospecting the version that although he was not using the premises as a workshop but as a store ancillary to his principal business he had to bring forward this proof.
It is thus not only pacific jurisprudence that upheld by the law ‘that the law does not appear to contemplate as a protected warehouse but as a ‘shop’ any premises where one holds goods, whatever they are but rather a premises where ‘wares’ or ‘goods’ connected with the business are held, but in the present case the premises was not leased as a ‘shop’ but specifically as a ‘workshop’ and rather a premises from where aluminium work is carried out. The premises in question was leased to the respondent for a specific and limited purpose and not as a shop for the carrying out of commercial activity without a purpose’.
....omissis....
That thus had the Board not taken the wrong impression regarding the deposition of Alfred Psaila, based on erroneous affermations as stated before it would certainly given more credit to that stated by Alfred Psaila who resides in the overlying premises where he stated that after the respondent was found guilty for a third time he did not go to the premises any more and did not work any more from there and is not making any use of it.’
The Board further concluded erroneously as regards the second ground brought forward by the applicants whereby it stated,
‘The second reason vaunted by the applicants is that the respondent is using the premises for the parking of private vehicles and thus changed the destination of the premises.
....omissis....
The Board however did not take care of the photo exhibited by the applicants which shows the private vehicle garaged it did not take care also of that stated by the respondent when cross-examined regarding the private vehcile there was in the garage when he stated he he does not know about the vehicle in question and whereby he stated that perhaps it belonged to his employee.
Even the conclusion of the Board in so far as stated that ‘If by the alleged behaviour the respondent is occupying the premises without a valid title at law than it was due to the applicants to have recourse to the ordinary Court for the opportune’ remedy is one which is not juridically correct in so far as it is evident that the applicants used the phrase ‘is occupying the premises without ant title’ not in the sense that he never had any title relating to the premises, but as a consequence of the violation of the lease conditions, the lease came to an end.
Thus the appellants respectfully pray that this Honourable Board revokes and cancels the judgement appealed and whilst rejecting the pleas/reply of the respondent upholds the applicants’ requestsd, with all costs of the first instance, as well as those before the Board, against the respondent.
Appellant: 9, ‘Carmen’, Triq G. Depasquale, Qormi.
Respondent: 25, Rue D’Argens, Msida.
113, Casa Belleview, Mdina Rd, Żebbuġ, Malta.
ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals