The minimal rental length saves a tenant from eviction by an actual property company | My Rights | Economy | EUROtoday

Signing a rental contract doesn’t imply giving up the rights acknowledged by regulation nor does it make all of the clauses included within the settlement legitimate. This has been made clear by a Valdemoro courtroom, which has overturned the eviction requested by an actual property company towards a tenant whose lease, regardless of what the proprietor of the house maintained, had not but ended. The key that has solved the case is present in one of many articles included within the Urban Leasing Law (LAU), which says that when the owner of the residence is an organization, the rental should final no less than seven years.

According to the confirmed details of the ruling – the textual content of which could be consulted right here – the house, situated in Valdemoro, was rented on October 1, 2019 by means of a contract signed with Bankia, then proprietor of the property. The contract established an preliminary length of two years and, as well as, included a putting clause: the exclusion of article 9 of the LAU, that’s, the availability that regulates the minimal rental length.

Years later, the property handed into the arms of the Livingcenter firm, which assumed the place of landlord and maintained that, after a two-year extension within the contract, the rental had ended on September 30, 2023. With that argument, it went to courtroom requesting eviction upon understanding that the lease interval had expired. The tenant objected, alleging that, for the reason that landlord was a authorized entity, the LAU imposes a minimal length of seven years, so the contract was nonetheless legitimate till September 2026.

The regulation is unappealable

The courtroom has dominated in favor of the tenant and has made it clear that the Urban Leases Law is last. Faced with the actual property firm’s argument, the decision is blunt: though the signed settlement included a clause that sought to nullify article 9 of the LAU, mentioned exclusion shouldn’t be legitimate. “Such exclusion is not possible, in accordance with the provisions of the LAU itself,” the ruling states.

The courtroom emphasizes that the principles on the minimal rental length can’t be modified if the exceptions established by regulation don’t exist, which didn’t happen on this case. It was not a house of greater than 300 sq. meters or a high-income rental that may permit a unique regime. For this motive, the decide provides, “the LAU rules govern imperatively, without it being possible to exclude their application at the will of the parties.”

The decision applies to article 9 of the LAU, which establishes that, if the lessor is a authorized entity, the minimal length of the lease will probably be seven years. Consequently, the courtroom concludes that, having signed the contract on October 1, 2019, “said contract expires on September 30, 2026,” and never in 2023, as the actual property proprietor of the house maintained.

The scope of the decision has an affect past the precise case. “The ruling is relevant because it ratifies the effective validity of the legal minimum of seven years in housing leases when the landlord is a legal entity,” he factors out. Mario Rodríguez Lópeza Legalion lawyer who has gained the battle in courtroom. In specific, he provides, “because it declares ineffective a contractual clause that was intended to exclude article 9 of the LAU, which precisely regulates the minimum term of leases.”

The lawyer additionally warns that a lot of these conditions should not remoted instances. “These practices are common in large holders,” he considers. And they comply with the identical sample: “they try to evade the law to obtain the maximum performance from the properties, to the detriment of tenants who see their rights violated.”

In brief, the Justice of the Peace overturns the eviction of the tenant and imposes the prices of the process on the actual property firm. However, an enchantment is feasible towards this decision earlier than the Provincial Court of Madrid.