Court decision regarding a dispute between a lessor and a tenant over the lessor's obligation to deliver and maintain a rented property in a suitable state.
Extract
[...] 3e Jan 2018, n° 16-25.126) - Is it permissible to consider that the solution would have been different if the parties had expressly provided in the lease that the works to bring the premises up to standard were the responsibility of the tenant or must we detect in this solution a principle according to which all works to bring the premises up to standard having the object of making the premises conform to their contractual destination fall within the lessor's obligation to deliver, without him being able to unload it? =The question is worth being asked, a fortiori when one knows the dangers of an assessment a contrario who can, in practice, have a non-negligible financial impact on the tenant, and so much so that dynamic insecurity is what hurts business relationships the most (R. Demogue, The fundamental concepts of private law: critical essay to serve as an introduction to the study of obligations, 1911). The case is referred to the Court of Appeal in Lyon. [...]
[...] In particular, it must carry out the required safety works as stipulated by the regulations to ensure the premises are operated in accordance with the intended use. - The scope of this judgment is to recall that in commercial leasing, Even if the contract limits repairs to wear and tear, the lessor must maintain the premises in a state to serve their intended use - here, a café-restaurant - particularly by carrying out the safety works imposed on establishments receiving the public. [...]
[...] SCOPE: This decision reinforces the protection of the tenant in asserting that the automatic renewal of the lease is derived from the law and does not require specific evidence, except for the regular termination of the landlord. NICOLAS DAMAS : The Civil Code considers the verbal lease (« fait sans écrit ») by conferring on it an indeterminate duration (art. 1737). However, this common law regime yields to the lease of a dwelling in which the tenant fixes his main residence. The the Law of 6 July 1989 is then applicable, which imposes in its article 10 a minimum duration of three years when the lessor is a natural person, or a civil family company, or constitutes a co-ownership. [...]
[...] Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber November No. 20-19.450; June No. 21-11.602; May No. 20-15.094; June No. 20-12.821; October No. 20-19-278; July No. 22-15.923; January No. [...]
[...] In this case, on 1 March 2002, a lessor company rented a commercial premises located in a building subject to the co-ownership status. On 16 August 2017, invoking various contractual breaches by the tenant, the lessor sued for termination of the lease, eviction and payment of an occupation indemnity. On the other hand, the tenant contests these demands by arguing that the lessor had not respected his obligation of delivery, due to water infiltrations in the rented premises and thus requests authorization to consign the rents in application of the exception of non-performance. [...]
