Urban leases
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Limitation on rent updating
The Supreme Court (TS) has rejected the claim of a landlord considered a " large holder " who was seeking compensation from the State for the legal limitation applied to the annual increase in rental housing prices.
The case arises from art. 46 of RDL 6/2022, which was initially intended for the period between 31-3-2022 and 30-6-2022, but was later extended until 31-12-2022 through two other Royal Decree Laws. During that time, the regulation established a maximum limit on rent updating. In the case of large holders , this limit was always applied, whether there was an agreement with the tenant or not, the increase could not exceed the annual variation of the Competitiveness Guarantee Index (IGC) on the update date. For lessors who were not large holders, the first thing required was what was agreed between the parties and, if there was no agreement , the IGC was also consulted.
The claiming landlord argued that this harmed him because in his contracts it had been agreed to update with the CPI, and the IGC cannot exceed 2% (L 2/2015), so the rent increased much less than expected. That's why he argued that it was an "expropriatory" measure that should entitle him to compensation according to the LRJSP art. 32. 3 and 4.
The Supreme Court denies it as it does not see an expropriation , but a temporary delimitation of the lessor's powers within the residential lease, without emptying the right of ownership or its "essential content." It also rejects the measure being unconstitutional which it considers justified to protect tenants economically, in a context of inflation (with the CPI reaching 10. 8% due to the war in Ukraine), and understands that it does not violate either the right to property, the limits of the decree-law, or legal certainty.
If you find yourself in a similar situation or have any dispute related to a housing lease, our professionals can analyze your case and take the most appropriate actions to defend your interestsRELATED CONTENT
-
Elevator maintenance
Nullity of duration clauses and excessive notice in successive contracts This case deals with a typical contract for “preventive maintenance” of elevators, which are not fulfilled in a single day, but are provided month by month (what is called in law a successive contract). A maintenance company sued a community of owners because it decided to terminate the contract before the agreed term expired. The company claimed two things, on one hand, that unpaid invoices were paid; and, on the other, compensation for “breaking” the contract early. The conflict revolved around two clauses of the contract where one set a duration of 3 years and the other required a notice of 180 days (six months) in advance if one wanted to terminate the contract. The community argued that these conditions were abusive in the case of a consumer (in this case, the community itself). In the first instance, the court ruled in favor of the company, ordering the community to pay both the compensation for early termination and the outstanding invoices (in addition to interest and costs). However, on appeal, the Provincial Court of Málaga changed the criterion, declaring the 3-year duration clause and the 180-day notice clause null and abusive. What is the practical consequence? If those clauses are invalid, the company cannot rely on them to demand a penalty or compensation for having terminated the contract early. Nevertheless, the community must pay what it actually owed, the outstanding invoices for services already rendered. The Supreme Court confirmed this outcome, the duration and notice clauses are considered null, no compensation is due for ending the contract early, and only unpaid invoices are owed.
-
Urban leases
Does a reversible work by the tenant give the owner the right to terminate the contract?
-
Urban Leases
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.