Background

The claimants filed a case against the defendants and requested the court to change Decision No. 691/1992 which stipulated that the last floor of a property should be demolished and that the whole property should be repaired. The claimants stated the whole property should be demolished.

The court ruled that some of the inhabitants should vacate the property and upheld the decision on the other points.

The claimants appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The claimants appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in their grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law because they had maintained before the court that defendant's tenancy agreements were terminated and the property should be empty and so there was no point repairing the whole property but the court had ignored this defence.