September 19, 2021

the tenant who is absent too much risks eviction

LThe tenant who turns his main residence into a furniture repository or a simple pied-à-terre risks eviction: he must occupy this accommodation in such a way as to “ effective et continue », Ie at least eight months a year (except for legitimate reasons linked to health or profession).

This provision, adopted in the midst of the housing crisis, on 1is September 1948, is still in force; This is understandable in the social sector, where demand is greater than supply, but what may be surprising, in the private sector. Marie-José X, for her part, still cannot believe it.

In 1986, she rented an apartment from a pension fund. In 2014, this landlord wondered if she still occupied it, although she regularly paid the rent. He obtained from the Nogent-sur-Marne (Val-de-Marne) district court the right to verify it. A bailiff therefore came to the disputed address and, in the absence of X, force the lock. He notices that the apartment “Has obviously not been inhabited for a long time”, this would be confirmed by the minimal water consumption and the presence of “Couriers” unopened dating from 2008. The fund decides to assign its tenant as soon as it reappears – ie one year later.

Occupation effective et continue

Mme X denies having “ abandoned »His accommodation, by the way« fully furnished “. She claims to have stayed there until February 2014, when she was “ hospitalized “. The court does not believe her and pronounces the termination of her lease on March 7, 2017. This is confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal on September 27, 2019 : the tenant “Was required to allocate the premises to his main dwelling, which presupposes an occupation of the premises, if not permanent, at least effective and continuous”, and who excludes “Use as a simple pied-à-terre”.

Read also How to find student accommodation for the start of the school year?

Mme X appealed on points of law, and his lawyer, Me Jean de Salve de Bruneton, maintains that the court could not rule thus, while the lease of Mme X does not specify that she was to make the apartment her main home and that he does not impose any duration of occupancy on her. The Court of Cassation rejected his appeal on May 6, 2021 (n ° 20-10.899). She recalls that “The law of 22 June 1982”, which governs this contract, “And the law of July 6, 1989, which succeeded it, require the lessee to occupy the premises […] as main dwelling “.

You have 16.88% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.