The Supreme Court (TS) has established, in a ruling last March 25, which are null and void clauses that establish an income above the maximum allowed by law in housing leases subject to the system of subsidized housing (VPO).
This case law is established in a decision of the Civil Division of the High Court. The Board considers an appeal by a tenant who was evicted for nonpayment of rent had been agreed with the owner of the apartment, after realizing that exceeded the maximum set 210 euros by the regulations for public housing.
In this case, referring to a home located across the street from the diligence of Madrid, the owner and the tenant agreed a rent of 660 euros. While the tenant subsequently realized that this price was higher than the 450 euro set in the legislation governing this type of housing.
The owner then broke down the amount of income into two parts. On the one hand the rent (while maintaining the maximum set by law) and the rest as furniture and appliances, but the tenant did not agree. Finally, the situation ended in an action eviction which was rejected by the Court of First Instance No. 69 in Madrid, but supported by the Provincial Court
The Court of Madrid had given reason to owners in March 2006, considering that the rent had been determined by agreement of the parties at the beginning of the contract. And, although the tenant had not accepted this amount at the time attempted to formalize in writing (to be higher than legally required for the VPO), this does not deprive the rent agreed to his condition. So that ground that the tenant does not pay the full amount from three years ago, came the eviction.
Now the TS repeats on the effects doctrine can be attributed to a contractual clause that set a rent above the permitted administratively.
is not "legally or ethically sustainable '
In a sentence which has lectured the president of the Civil Division, Juan Antonio Xiol, the high court notes that the First Additional Provision of the Urban Leases Act of 1994, cancels the contracts that exceed the maximum income allowed under the applicable administrative rules. This implies that, after entry into force of this law, "no is ethically or legally sustainable "support two types of leases covered in a permissive law.
Since it is undisputed that, in this case, the agreed rent was higher than the legal maximum, a clause like the covenant is null and binding upon the parties to accommodate the income projections in the Leasing Act itself "with the return of the overpayment." It Considers that the Supreme Court of Madrid "erred" in finding that the tenant breached its obligation to pay.
Source: MUndo.es
0 comments:
Post a Comment