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In simple terms: once the landlord has unequivocally terminated the lease and withdrawn consent, a tenant who refuses to leave is no longer a “difficult tenant” in a purely civil dispute – he may be a criminal offender.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 appellant landlord.
· The new landlord sent:
o A 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.
o Through his lawyers, the tenant disputed the arrears and alleged breaches of the landlord’s contractual obligations.
o A termination letter (24.7.2019) expressly terminating the tenancy and calling for vacant possession on 31.8.2019.
o 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:
1. Possession / use / enjoyment of land;
2. The land is registered in the name of another;
3. 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:
1. Is the registered owner, and
2. Has unequivocally terminated the tenancy and demanded return of possession, then
3. 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:
1. What if the termination is clearly invalid?
Imagine a case where the landlord purports to terminate in a way that is patently inconsistent with mandatory statutory protections (e.g. Rent Control Law protections for statutory tenants). If criminal courts refuse to look behind the letter of the termination notice, a tenant could face criminal liability even where a civil court would later find the termination void.
2. Standard of proof and “consent”
Even if criminal courts avoid detailed contract analysis, they still must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the owner has truly withdrawn consent. Where termination is contested on credible grounds, one could argue that this should feed into reasonable doubt as to whether consent has in fact been withdrawn.
3. Risk of abusive use of Article 281
Landlords may be tempted to use criminal complaints as leverage in rent disputes, filing under Article 281 while the civil validity of termination is arguable. Prosecutorial discretion and judicial vigilance will be essential to prevent criminalisation of genuine contractual disagreements.
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.
Whether future case law will soften this approach in extreme or abusive scenarios remains to be seen.
6. The Judgment’s pros and cons
6.1. The “pros”: certainty and protection for owners
From a policy perspective, there are clear advantages:
· Clarity for owners: once a landlord terminates and demands possession, the tenant’s continued occupation is potentially criminal. This strengthens the hand of both individual and corporate landlords.
· Prevention against illegal tenancy: the decision directly addresses the long-standing problem of tenants who “sit tight”, using civil delays to remain in occupation without paying rent.
· Coherence with the registry system: Article 281 is designed to protect the holder of registered title. This judgment confirms that the criminal law will back the land registry regime in cases of prolonged, unjustified occupation.
For institutional landlords, funds, banks, and property-holding SPVs, this is a significant development. A well-prepared file (clear notices, proof of service, evidence of refusal) can now trigger a criminal complaint alongside a civil claim for possession.
6.2. The “cons”: criminal law in the middle of civil disputes
At the same time, there are real risks:
· Tenants with legitimate grievances
Where landlords are in serious, ongoing breach (e.g. failure to repair, unsafe conditions, mis-applied charges), tenants often resist termination or set-off rent claims. Under this judgment, even a tenant with a strong civil case who stays on after termination risks criminal prosecution.
· Asymmetry of risk
In many jurisdictions, the criminal law is used to protect tenants against illegal eviction by landlords (In South Africa for example evicting without a court order is a criminal offence). Cyprus now stands out in using a general unlawful-occupation offence primarily against overholding tenants.
· Potential chilling effect
Tenants may feel compelled to vacate immediately, even where the alleged termination is obviously defective or retaliatory, simply to avoid a criminal record. This may be creating a power imbalance, particularly in residential settings.
In our opinion, a balanced approach in practice will depend heavily on prosecutors and police, who will need internal guidelines on when Article 281 is an appropriate tool in landlord-tenant disputes.
7. Comparative common law context
Under classic common law principles:
· A tenant who stays on after expiry of a lease may become a tenant at sufferance or, if consent is clearly withdrawn, a trespasser. The landlord’s remedies are primarily civil: possession actions, mesne profits, sometimes distress for rent (where available).
· Some jurisdictions have modern legislation on squatting. For example, in England & Wales, section 144 LASPO 2012 criminalises squatting in a residential building by a person who entered as a trespasser, but expressly excludes overholding tenants – the UK briefing makes clear that the offence “does not apply to legitimate tenants who refuse to leave at the end of their tenancy” (Ministry of Justice, Circular No. 2012/04, 22/8/2012).
In other words:
· In many common law systems, remaining after termination can make you a trespasser, but criminal liability is exceptional and normally targeted at squatters or illegal evictors, not at tenants engaged in an ongoing contractual dispute.
· Cyprus, via Article 281 and this judgment, adopts a much stronger criminal approach towards overholding tenants – closer to some “unlawful occupation” cases, but with a different focus.
This makes CCSRE v Menelaou a case of comparative interest beyond Cyprus: it shows how a general unlawful-occupation offence can be interpreted to bite directly in the landlord-tenant context.
8. Practical takeaways for landlords and tenants
For landlords:
· Draft and serve clear notices
o Ensure termination notices are unequivocal, dated, and properly served.
o Clearly demand vacant possession by a specific date and keep evidence of service.
· Maintain a clean record of your own performance
o Because civil disputes still matter, keep careful records of repair works, communications and compliance with your own obligations to reduce the risk of a later civil finding that the termination was wrongful.
· Use Article 281 strategically, not reflexively
o A criminal complaint can be a powerful tool, but in complex or borderline cases it may be wiser to focus on expedited civil proceedings and negotiated exit arrangements.
For tenants
· Do not ignore termination notices
o If you dispute a termination, seek legal advice promptly and consider proactive civil steps (e.g. declaratory relief, filing a claim) rather than simply staying put.
· Expect parallel actions
o A tenant may now face both a civil claim for possession and criminal exposure under Article 281 if he remains after a clear termination and demand to vacate.
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 what was often a frustrating, slow civil battle into a context where criminal law can, in appropriate cases, play a supporting role.
From a rule-of-law perspective, however, the decision raises legitimate concerns:
· How do we protect tenants with genuine contractual claims from being criminalised?
· Should criminal courts be entirely blind to manifest defects in termination, or should such defects feed into the assessment of “consent” and reasonable doubt?
· Is there a need for legislative fine-tuning or prosecutorial guidelines to prevent misuse?
These questions will likely surface in future cases. 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.
