The eviction/vacation of real estate is not explicitly regulated by law, it is only mentioned quite sketchyly by the provisions of § 2225 of the Civil Code (CC) in connection with the termination of the lease ("handover also means handing over the vacated immovable property"), § 2284, 2299 and 2301 CC in connection with the tenant's death (“If the tenant's heir is not known within six months from the date of the tenant's death, the landlord may vacate the apartment; thus the lease expires. The landlord shall store the things from the apartment at the expense of the tenant's heir in a public warehouse or at another custodian" and „If the tenant dies, the tenancy of the service apartment will end. A person who lived in the apartment together with the tenant has the right to live in the apartment; however, if the landlord invites her to vacate the apartment, she shall do so no later than three months from the date on which she receives the invitation.") and § 2260 to 2262 CC in connection with modifications and other changes to the apartment or house.
This brief informative article primarily addresses the case where the tenant does not vacate the space (apartment, non-residential space, land, etc.) on the handover date (whether agreed or announced). Eviction/vacation means materially the removal of all movables (tenant) from the leased premises. Even here, however, the question may arise whether the space is really vacated, if, for example, only a bag, a toothbrush, or other small things. In practice, this is solely at the discretion of the court (in case of a lawsuit) whether or not it considers the space to be vacated in such a situation.
According to current case law, it is therefore generally essential (on the part of the user - eg tenants, subtenants, but also persons without a legal title) to definitely leave the property and namely vacated (empty). If this does not happen, the Supreme Court has reached the following conclusions in a number of its decisions:
a) the use of the object of the lease is also its non-vacation after the end of the lease period - compare, for example, the judgments of the Supreme Court of 30 May 2012, file no. No. 32 Cdo 2471/2010, dated 22 April 2015, file no. No. 26 Cdo 4018/2014
b) the vacation of an immovable thing (apartment) also includes the handing over of the thing to the owner so that he has free access to it and can dispose of it (eg handing over the keys, ie it is not enough to just leave it) - compare the Supreme Court judgments of 28. 2. 2008, sp. No. 33 Odo 49/2006, of 11 January 2012, file no. No. 26 Cdo 3560/2010, dated 12 December 2016, file no. No. 26 Cdo 4354/2016, dated 19 February 2018, file no. No. 26 Cdo 2105/2017). Also under the effectiveness of the current legislation (previous CC), it applies that the proper vacation of the apartment (real estate) also presupposes its handover to the landlord.
The handover of the apartment to the landlord is regulated by § 2292 (second and third sentences) of the CC - see, for example, the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 February 2018, file no. No. 26 Cdo 2105/2017. The tenant is to hand over the keys to the landlord, while the third sentence establishes a rebuttable presumption of handing over the landlord to the landlord after the end of the lease on the day the tenant left it in a way that clearly indicated that he left using the apartment with no intention of returning there (without handing over the keys). Thus, according to the above, it is undoubtedly possible to conclude that the keys to the apartment (or business premises) can be left slammed (inside the property) or thrown into the box belonging to the rented property or belonging to the landlord (at the address of its registered office or residence). However, it can only be recommended that the tenant simultaneously provably (in writing or electronically) informs the landlord that he has left the property (permanently) and where he left the keys.
Tedy pro soud nebylo vůbec významné, že nájemce tam bedny ponechal jen proto, že pronajímatel nehodlal prostory převzít a šlo je odvézt jednorázově při skutečném předání. Své rozhodnutí soud odůvodnil jen tím, že pronajímatel není povinen prostory převzít, pokud nejsou vyklizeny – tedy vůbec nereflektoval skutečnost, že pronajímatel vůbec nechtěl převzít prostory, tedy nikoliv pro jejich „nevyklizenost“. Dle mého názoru soud chybně nepřihlédnul k této (pro věc) podstatné skutečnosti a tímto nájemce (žalovaného) ve sporu poškodil.
Personally, I have had recent experience that the court in the case of a dispute over payment (rent or unjust enrichment) for the use of such premises (when the lease was terminated earlier) fully preferred whether resp. whenthe premises were vacated (and on what date), before the fact that the landlord completely (and in advance) refused to take over such premises at the tenant's invitation at an earlier date due to the dispute over the rightfulness of the tenant's termination (and thus the term of termination). That is, despite the fact that the tenant has informed the landlord that he has already left the premises and intends to hand them over to the landlord on 30.6. and the landlord refused to take them over on this date (as a result of which the handover took place on 30 September), just because the tenant left a few boxes in the premises, which he decided to take away only when the property was handed over on 30 September. (which it also did), the court granted the landlord the right to pay unjust enrichment (in the amount of the usual rent) for the entire period, ie from 30.6. to 30.9. Thus, it was not at all significant for the court that the tenant left the boxes there only because the landlord did not intend to take over the premises and it was possible to take them away once during the actual handover. The court reasoned its decision only by the fact that the landlord is not obliged to take over the premises if they are not vacated - that is, it did not reflect at all the fact that the landlord did not want to take over the premises at all, not because of their "non-vacation". In my view, the court erred in disregarding this (for the matter) significant fact and thereby damaged the tenant (defendant) in the dispute.
Conclusion:
It can only be recommended, even if the landlord refuses to take back the leased premises from the tenant due to a dispute over the moment of termination of the lease (length of notice), to have the following done:
The lessee actually has completely vacated the premises and left them (ie did not use them in any way), at the latest at the time of the end of the lease he claims, otherwise he is on the risk of the obligation to pay compensation for use of the premises to the landlord as an unjust enrichment.
The landlord, on the other hand, has verified and, if necessary, documented whether the tenant, although he claims that he no longer uses the premises and vacated them, no longer uses the premises in any way. If so and the tenancy has actually ended, the landlord is entitled to claim unjust enrichment in the amount of the (usual) rent.
コメント