A business tenant said it had agreed a new lease after losing its eviction case. The Supreme Court held on 30 September 2026 that the landlord’s writ of possession stood.
Klitos Platis, advocate
Your first message costs nothing: within one working day we tell you whether we can help and what it would cost.
klitos@kleanthousplatis.com
A business tenant that loses an eviction case cannot hold off the landlord later by saying a new lease was agreed, unless it can prove the new lease. On 30 September 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed a tenant company’s appeal and left in place the writ of possession the landlord had obtained six years after the judgment.
This matters to every landlord and tenant of business premises in Cyprus. Eviction cases often run for years, and the parties often go on dealing with each other while they do. What they agree in that time, and how they record it, decides who keeps the premises at the end.
What happened
The tenant was a limited company that imported heavy machinery and parts. It rented premises in Tochni, where it had its registered office and ran its business. In 2018 the landlord sued it in the Limassol District Court for unpaid rent and an order for possession.
Judgment went against the tenant on 27 February 2019, and its appeal was dismissed on 16 July 2024. During the appeal it had obtained a stay of the eviction. After the appeal it applied to the Supreme Court for leave on a point of law, and that application was dismissed on 4 November 2024.
The tenant said that in July 2024, after the appeal was dismissed, it agreed a new tenancy with the landlord and paid the rent every month. The landlord denied any new agreement. On 27 June 2025, on an application made without notice to the tenant, the District Court ordered a writ of possession.
The tenant applied to the Supreme Court for certiorari to quash that order. A single judge refused on 31 March 2026, and the tenant appealed.
What the tenant argued
The tenant said the 2019 order had lapsed because the new lease had replaced it, so the writ gave effect to an order that no longer had any object. It also said the judgment had never been served at its registered office. At the appeal hearing its counsel added a new point: that the District Court had not checked whether the people in actual possession had been given notice before it granted leave for the writ.
Why the appeal failed
A point not raised before the first judge cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court held that the notice argument was new and refused to decide it, because the landlord had never had the chance to answer it below.
Personal service on the company’s sole director was good service. It was common ground that the judgment had been served on him personally. Under the rules then in force, service on a company’s head officer was one of the valid ways of serving a company, and the Court held that service at the registered office was not also needed. What matters, it said, is that the company knew of the judgment, and the steps the tenant had taken since 2019 showed beyond doubt that it did.
The claim of a new lease was a dispute of fact, and certiorari does not try facts. The tenant gave no details of the new lease: not when it was made, not whether it was written or oral, not the rent and not its length. Its affidavit also left out the stay it had obtained and its application for leave in 2024. The first judge rightly found that this was not a question of law, and the Supreme Court agreed.
The tenant also had another remedy, and that was enough on its own to refuse certiorari. A person affected by an order made without notice could apply to the court that made it to have it set aside. Certiorari is an exceptional remedy, and the Court repeated that the nature of a writ of possession is not by itself an exceptional circumstance that justifies bypassing that route.
A new lease agreed after an eviction judgment protects the tenant only if it can be proved. Without dates, terms and a written record, it is a claim the landlord can simply deny.
The appeal was dismissed with €3,000 costs against the tenant.
What this means in practice
For a tenant who has lost an eviction case: if you reach a new arrangement with the landlord, put it in writing, signed by both sides, with the date, the rent and the term, and say expressly that it replaces the order for possession. Rent paid and accepted, on its own, left this tenant with nothing it could prove.
If a writ of possession is issued without notice to you, move quickly, and move first in the District Court that issued it. An application to the Supreme Court for certiorari is not a shortcut, and here it took from the order of June 2025 to September 2026 for the tenant to learn that it had chosen the wrong route.
Whatever you file, tell the court the whole history, including the steps that do not help you. This tenant’s affidavit left out its own stay and its own leave application, and the Court held that against it.
For a landlord: an order for possession does not lapse simply because the appeals took years. Before accepting rent after judgment, take advice on how the payment is recorded, because a tenant may later rely on it, as this one tried to. When the company is served, personal service on its director was held to be enough, and a record of that service is worth keeping.
Our property lawyers act for landlords and tenants of business premises, and our litigation team handles eviction actions and the enforcement of orders for possession.
Questions we are asked
I lost an eviction case, but the landlord then accepted rent. Does that stop the eviction?
Not by itself. In this case the tenant said a new lease had been agreed and that it had paid rent every month, but it gave no details of when, whether in writing or orally, the rent or the length of the lease. The Supreme Court treated the claim as a disputed question of fact, which could not stop the writ of possession through a certiorari application.
The writ of possession was issued without my knowledge. What do I do first?
Apply to the District Court that made the order to have it set aside. The order was made on an application without notice, and the Court held that the existence of that route was on its own enough to refuse certiorari in the Supreme Court.
The judgment was handed to our director, not sent to our registered office. Was that good service?
In this case, yes. Personal service on the company’s sole director was one of the valid ways of serving a company under the rules then in force, and the Court held that service at the registered office was not also required.
What should my first message say?
The court and the action number, the date of the eviction judgment, the date of any writ of possession and how you learned of it, and whatever you have in writing about any arrangement with the landlord after the judgment, including rent receipts and messages.
Sources
Need advice on your own matter?
Your first message costs nothing: within one working day we tell you whether we can help and what it would cost.
klitos@kleanthousplatis.com
Kleanthous & Platis LLC Registered law company Cyprus Bar Association HE 441973
Further reading
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and their application can change, and individual circumstances differ. For advice on your own matter, contact Klitos Platis at klitos@kleanthousplatis.com.
Receive legal updates by email
When Cyprus law changes, hear it from us
One short email when something changes that matters: new legislation, a decision worth knowing, a deadline. Written by the partners, no marketing, unsubscribe with one click.
You are on the list. The next update on Cyprus law will reach your inbox.
That did not go through. Please write to office@kleanthousplatis.com and we will add you.
Your address is used for these updates and nothing else. Privacy notice.