Για Ελληνικά πιέστε εδώ

Cyprus Courts Ruled: Tenants Commit a Criminal Offence by Refusing to Vacate Rental Premises

Our legal analysis of the case CCSRE Real Estate Company Ltd v Theodorou Menelaou (Crim. App. 94/2022, 31.10.2025)

1. Why this judgment matters

In its judgment of 31 October 2025, the Cyprus Court of Appeal (Criminal Jurisdiction) held that a tenant who remains in possession of leased premises after lawful termination of the tenancy and a clear demand to vacate, commits the offence of unlawful possession of immovable property under Article 281(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154.

In simple terms: once the landlord has unequivocally terminated the lease and withdrawn consent, a tenant who refuses to leave is no longer a “difficult tenant” in a purely civil dispute – he may be a criminal offender.

This decision is already being reported in the Cyprus and international press as a landmark development in landlord-tenant relations and an important clarification of Article 281.

2. The facts in brief

In 2013, the defendant / tenant (Menelaou) entered into a one-year tenancy for premises in Larnaca, at €500 per month. He paid rent only up to 1.3.2014 and never renewed the tenancy yet remained in possession.

In 2016 the property was transferred and registered in the name of CCSRE Real Estate Company Ltd.

The new landlord sent:

• First letter (21.2.2018) claiming €23,500 in arrears and warning that it would terminate the tenancy if the arrears were not paid within 15 days.
• Through his lawyers, the tenant disputed the arrears and alleged breaches of the landlord’s contractual obligations.
• Termination letter (24.7.2019) expressly terminating the tenancy and calling for vacant possession on 31.8.2019.
• A further letter (21.8.2019) extending the deadline and confirming that delivery would be expected on 1.10.2019.

On 1.10.2019, the landlord’s representative attended the premises, found that the tenant refused to vacate, and left.

Criminal proceedings were brought under Article 281(1)(a) for unlawful possession of land registered in the name of another, allegedly from 1.10.2019 onwards. The District Court acquitted the tenant and rejected the case, finding that absence of consent had not been proven. The landlord appealed.

3. Legal framework: Article 281 & appeals against acquittals

Article 281(1)(a) Criminal Code provides that any person who:

“possesses, cultivates, occupies or otherwise uses land registered in the name of another without the consent of the registered owner…[…] commits an offence punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to €10,000 or both”.

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the three constituent elements of the offence:

• Possession / use / enjoyment of land
• The land is registered in the name of another
• Lack of consent of the registered owner

The first two elements were undisputed. The entire appeal turned on the third: was there consent after 1.10.2019?

Procedurally, as this was an appeal against an acquittal, the Court stressed that under Article 137(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, appeals are limited to questions of law, not a disguised re-evaluation of evidence.

The question was therefore whether the trial court was wrong in its interpretation of the law in its approach to “consent”.

4. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning

4.1. Continuous nature of the offence and burden of proof

The Court recalled its earlier case law that Article 281 creates a continuous offence. In Robb v Police (2012) and Ioannou v Alifantis (Crim. App. 163-165/17), it held that once the prosecution proves the first two elements and lack of consent, the burden shifts to the accused to establish one of the specific statutory defences in Article 281(2) (purchase, distribution, exchange, inheritance, marriage).

Those defences are exhaustive. Arguments about contractual rights, alleged landlord breaches or “illegal termination” are not among them.

4.2. Why the trial court was wrong

The District Court reasoned that because the tenant originally entered into possession under a lease, he had not “arbitrarily” occupied the premises, and that even the termination of the lease did not necessarily mean consent had been withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal firmly rejected the District Court’s approach:

• From 1.10.2019, the tenancy had been “expressly and clearly terminated”, and the landlord had required delivery of vacant possession.
• From that date onwards, the tenant’s continued possession was without the landlord’s consent.
• Any other conclusion would “frustrate the purpose of the statute”.

In other words, once a landlord:

• Is the registered owner, and
• Has unequivocally terminated the tenancy and demanded return of possession, then
• The tenant cannot hide behind the original lawful entry into the premises.

4.3. Civil unlawfulness vs criminal consent

The crucial, and controversial, part of the judgment is the Court’s statement that the criminal court cannot examine whether termination was “illegal” under civil law: Whether the contract was terminated “illegally” may be important in a civil action for damages, but in criminal proceedings under Article 281(1) the only question is whether there was, or was not, consent of the registered owner at the material time.

Because the landlord had made its position crystal clear in writing, the Court considered the answer to be “clearly negative” and held that the element of absence of consent was satisfied.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal quashed, and the tenant was convicted.

5. Can a criminal court look at the “civil” side?

This judgment adopts a hard line: the criminal court will not examine nor decide whether the landlord was in breach of the lease, whether rent claims were accurate, or whether termination complied with every contractual or statutory nuance. Those are matters for the civil courts.

In principle, this is consistent with the separation of jurisdictions:

• The criminal court determines if the elements of the offence are present (here: lack of consent).
• The civil court determines contractual rights, landlord breaches, rent disputes, damages, etc.

However, this raises difficult questions:

• What if the termination is clearly invalid?
• Standard of proof and “consent”
• Risk of abusive use of Article 281

The Court of Appeal has deliberately drawn a bright line: the defences under Article 281(2) are closed, and civil unlawfulness of termination is, in principle, irrelevant for criminal liability.

6. The Judgment’s pros and cons

6.1. The “pros”: certainty and protection for owners

• Clarity for owners: once a landlord terminates and demands possession, the tenant’s continued occupation is potentially criminal.
• Prevention against illegal tenancy: the decision directly addresses tenants who “sit tight” and delay civil remedies.
• Coherence with the registry system: Article 281 protects the holder of registered title.

6.2. The “cons”: criminal law in the middle of civil disputes

• Tenants with legitimate grievances: even a strong civil claim may expose them to criminal prosecution if they stay after termination.
• Asymmetry of risk: criminal law now primarily targets overholding tenants in Cyprus.
• Potential chilling effect: tenants may vacate immediately to avoid a criminal record.

7. Comparative common law context

• A tenant who stays on after expiry may become a trespasser – remedies are mainly civil.
• In England, s.144 LASPO 2012 criminalises squatting in residential buildings but excludes overholding tenants.

8. Practical takeaways for landlords and tenants

For landlords

• Draft and serve clear notices: ensure termination is unequivocal, dated, and properly served.
• Maintain a clean record: repairs, communications, and compliance.
• Use Article 281 strategically, not reflexively.

For tenants

• Do not ignore termination notices: seek legal advice and consider proactive civil steps.
• Expect parallel actions: civil claim and criminal exposure may proceed simultaneously.

9. Conclusion: a strong signal but not the final word

The Court of Appeal in CCSRE Real Estate v Menelaou has sent a strong and clear message: After a clear termination of the lease and a demand to vacate, a tenant who remains in possession occupies without consent and may be criminally liable under Article 281(1)(a).

From a landlord’s perspective, the judgment is welcome. It transforms slow civil battles into a context where criminal law can, in appropriate cases, play a supporting role.

From a rule-of-law perspective, the decision raises legitimate concerns:

• How do we protect tenants with genuine contractual claims from being criminalised?
• Should criminal courts be blind to manifest defects in termination, or should such defects feed into the assessment of “consent” and reasonable doubt?
• Is legislative fine-tuning or prosecutorial guidance needed to prevent misuse?

For now, CCSRE v Menelaou stands as a key authority in Cyprus: a tenant who “overholds” after a clear termination and demand to vacate is no longer simply “in breach of contract”; he is at serious risk of committing a criminal offence.

Για Ελληνικά πιέστε εδώ

The information provided by AGPLAW | A.G. Paphitis & Co. LLC is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional or formal legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information contained herein, the author, publisher, or any related parties make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the information. In no event will the author, publisher, or any related parties be liable for any loss or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this document/article. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided above without obtaining legal or other professional advice.