The Supreme Court will sort out conflicts between tenants and property owners
[ad_1]
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC) will decide whether it is possible to collect the debt from the tenant if the contract was terminated and the premises were vacated, but the owner of the property did not sign the acceptance certificate. The lower courts recovered the rent because the fact of the transfer of the premises was not documented. Based on the tenant’s complaint, the Supreme Court became interested in the case. Lawyers say that cases of landlords evading acceptance of premises are not uncommon and it is almost impossible to avoid them, but tenants still have ways to prove their case.
The Supreme Court will consider a dispute regarding the termination of a lease agreement if the owner of the premises evades signing the acceptance certificate (.pdf). Since December 2013, OJSC Economic and Operational Administration of the Admiralteysky District (HEU) has rented non-residential premises with an area of 186 square meters from the Property Relations Committee of St. Petersburg. m in the city center. The contract was concluded for 11 months, but the company continued to use the premises in the absence of objections from the committee, so the lease was extended indefinitely.
In February 2022, the authorities filed a claim against the OJSC to recover 3.56 million rubles. rent and 8.81 million rubles. peny. The plaintiff claimed that HEU had accumulated debt for the period from July 1, 2015 to March 31, 2019. At the same time, the committee stated in court that in March 2019 it offered the defendant to repay the debt, voluntarily terminate the contract and vacate the premises. The company referred to the fact that it had not rented the property for a long time, notified the committee of the termination of the contract back in June 2017 and left the premises a month later.
The acceptance certificate was not drawn up due to the landlord’s evasion, the HEU noted, attaching its own inspection report of the premises, signed by the building’s management company.
The Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region rejected the claim (.pdf), having come to the conclusion that the committee “does not have the right to demand rent” for the period of delay in returning the property, “since it itself avoided accepting it.” The appeal partially satisfied the claim and recovered 264 thousand rubles from the company. debt (from January 3, 2019 to March 31, 2019) and 409 thousand rubles. penalties (.pdf). The rest of the claims were denied due to the statute of limitations. According to the appeal, “vacation of the premises in itself” does not cancel the obligation “to pay until the rental object is returned under the acceptance certificate to the lessor.” The cassation agreed with this.
The company appealed to the Supreme Court, clarifying that the courts ignored a number of circumstances. In particular, in February 2018, in response to the tenant’s appeal, the committee informed the OJSC about the preparation of a draft agreement to terminate the lease agreement, promising to notify the time and place of its signing. However, the complaint says, the committee never “took action to prepare an agreement.” The tenant considered the contract terminated because he moved out and notified the landlord, who “assured that the termination agreement was executed.”
HEU noted that “due to the committee’s evasion of terminating the contract,” it could not draw up an act of acceptance and transfer of property, but there is evidence of the fact of vacating the premises in the form of an inspection report. Moreover, the company asked to involve the management organization that signed this act as a third party, but the court refused. The case was transferred to the economic board, the hearing is scheduled for October 10.
Orchards lawyer Petr Matskevich notes that situations where the landlord evades accepting premises from a tenant who wants to move out are not uncommon.
It is “almost impossible to avoid this, since acceptance depends entirely on the actions of the landlord,” says Artem Makarov, lawyer at the Kosenkov and Suvorov dispute resolution practice. According to him, sometimes landlords can prevent not only the delivery of premises, but also interfere with the removal of property, and also avoid signing an additional agreement on specific rental conditions to the framework agreement, which can cause the payment to increase significantly.
The landlord’s actions to evade acceptance of the premises will be considered unfair only “if the lease agreement has terminated,” explains Mr. Matskevich. For example, the contract expired and was not renewed or the tenant exercised the right of unilateral refusal. In the latter case, the tenant must comply with the notice period for termination of the contract (three months by law, but another can be established in the contract), emphasizes ProLegals partner Elena Kravtsova. The contract will terminate only upon expiration of the term, and during this time the rent must be transferred, even if the premises are vacated, she clarifies.
The main task of the tenant is “to create an evidence base confirming that the landlord had no reason not to accept the premises,” emphasizes Artem Makarov.
So, he explains, if the landlord is notified, the period has expired, the contract has been terminated, but the acceptance certificate has not been signed, the tenant should “record the fact of departure.”
It is necessary to draw up an inspection report with the signatures of third parties, it is advisable to take photos or videos and then sign the acceptance certificate yourself and send it with evidence to the landlord by mail, advises Ms. Kravtsova. This should help avoid unreasonable payments to the landlord, believes Piotr Matskevich. In general, lawyers expect that the Supreme Court will consolidate the approach according to which the landlord cannot demand payment for the time after the failed acceptance of the premises, which he himself evaded.
[ad_2]
Source link
