On the obligatory nature of compliance in leases of premises,,es,Guide of the patrimonial responsibility of the Local Administration,,es,Partial non-payment and insurance coverage,,es,Practical guide to corporate crimes,,es,On the nullity of the clause of entrenchment,,es

arrendamiento

The tenant of a local must pay compensation for unilateral withdrawal without respecting the notice

Consult your case now

Conventional extension of the lease is the duration of the contract and is binding on the parties. Therefore, in case of withdrawal unilaterally by the lessee, the landlord is entitled to enforce the contract.

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court by Judgment 341/2018, of 7 June confirmed the condemnation of the Community of Madrid to pay compensation for unilateral and early termination of the lease.

Antecedentes

The 30 June 2005 Metrovacesa S.A. held with the Community of Madrid a lease on the first gave way to the second lease the premises of a building owned. The period was the 30 June 2010, foreseeing annual extensions If neither party will communicated the resolution in advance of 3 meno monthss, the date of completion of the contract period or the expiration of the extension.

The 30 January 2009, Metrovacesa S.A. He sold the premises to the Financial Leasing S.A. EFC, who held the same day with Valderas Gardens S.L.. leasing contract on the premises referred.

The 1 July 2010, Gardens held with the Community of Madrid a new lease in which they expressed their willingness to give extinguished the contract in 2005 and conclusion by the parties of a new contract on the same premises.

The 25 May 2012 the Community of Madrid Jardines informed by email your resolutoria will, offering compensation payment 3 months to September 2012. Gardens rejected the proposal and the Community of Madrid made another proposal to pay rents to the 31 December 2012 which also was rejected because Gardens understood that the contract was extended until 30 June 2013.

The 3 July 2012, by order of the Ministry of Economy and Finance of the Community of Madrid termination of the contract it was agreed from the 31 December 2012.

Although the Madrid made available to local Gardens, he refused to receive them for payment of what was owed and only to the 31 July 2013 he received.

The 24 September 2013, Gardens sued the Community of Madrid requesting payment of rents from January to July 2013 and the necessary work to make transparent local.

The matter of dispute was the extent of the compensation that the Community of Madrid had to pay as a tenant of a local to withdraw unilaterally without respecting the agreed notice period. Additionally, the interpretation of the contract regarding the obligation of the Community of Madrid to restore the diaphanous premises, removing all the elements that once incorporated.

Primera Instancia

The Court of First Instance No. 86 Madrid gave judgment on 30 April 2014 in which partially it upheld the claim, condemning the Madrid to pay income accrued between January and June 2013 for compensation for early termination of contract, but he rejected the request for replacement of the premises in the state it was in before the date of the initial contract 2005 because he understood that this had been extinguished by holding new one 2010.

The Community of Madrid appealed against the decision of the Court.

Segunda Instancia

The section 12 of the Provincial Court of Madrid by sentence 8 October 2015, He upheld the appeal on the basis of the following arguments:

  1. Payment of rent by the tenant until December 2012 He represented a partial failure on their part and therefore it should be moderated Art. 1154 Civil Code.
  1. The advance ruling was justified because the fate of the premises was to serve location at courthouses and the lack of need for such offices by the lessee Administration determined the lack of purpose of the contract, to not serve the intended purpose.
  1. Payment of the rental income 7 meses en que no se usaron los locales era suficiente para mitigar los posibles daños. Consideró la Sala que con los meses pagados se indemnizaban los posibles daños que el incumplimiento hubiera podido ocasionar a la arrendadora.
  1. La tardía recepción de los locales en julio de 2013 era imputable a la arrendadora que no lo quiso recibir en las distintas oportunidades que la arrendataria lo puso a su disposición.

Contra la decisión de la Audiencia Provincial, Jardines de Valderas SL interpuso recurso de casación ante el Tribunal Supremo.

Casación

Se fundó el recurso en 2 argumentos principales:

De un lado se impugnó la desestimación de la pretensión de condena a la demandada al pago de toda la renta correspondiente al año completo en el que se produjo la prórroga del contrato.

De otro, se impugnó la desestimación de la pretensión de condena a la demandada del pago de la cantidad necesaria para reponer el local al estado en el que estaba antes de la celebración del primer contrato.

La Sala estudió la indemnización que debe pagar el arrendatario que abandona el local durante la prórroga del contrato y afirmó que la prórroga convencional constituye el plazo de duración del contrato y es vinculante para las partes de acuerdo con lo señalado en los artículos 4.3 LAU y 1091 and 1258 Civil Code, sin que pueda servir de eximente para el cumplimiento del plazo la falta de interés de la Comunidad de Madrid de continuar el contrato por la política de reducción de gastos.

No existiendo cláusula penal que fuese posible moderar, no podía aplicarse el art. 1154 the Civil Code and, in the words of the Chamber No se trata tampoco de fijar la indemnización por el incumplimiento contractual, sino de una acción de cumplimiento del plazo convenido de duración del contrato.

En cuanto a la obligación de la arrendataria de reponer el local en el estado que se encontraba cuando le fue entregado por primera vez en el año 2005, según la arrendadora porque el contrato de 2010 fue una novación impropia que solo modificó al arrendador manteniéndose el contrato en sus cláusulas y obligaciones igual al originario, la Sala señaló que la interpretación de las dos instancias no adolece de ningún defecto que le permita modificarla y adicionalmente no quedó constancia de si Metrovacesa (arrendador inicial) había autorizado las obras que realizó la Comunidad de Madrid y “en todo caso la exclusión pactada de la aplicación del art. 23 LAU solo podía interpretarse como exclusión de lo dispuesto en el apartado segundo, de modo que el arrendador renunciaba a la posibilidad de exigir que se repusiera el local al estado que se encontraba anteriormente.

Conclusion

Accordingly, el Tribunal Supremo estimó parcialmente el recurso en cuanto a las rentas impagadas por la Comunidad de Madrid y confirmó íntegramente la sentencia del Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº86 de Madrid de 30 April 2014. El arrendatario de un local está obligado al cumplimiento del contrato.

Consult your case now

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required