The Provincial Court of Las Palmas dismissed the lawsuit due to the lack of a petition to present a tenant for not having paid for the conservation works of the house that he assumed in the contract. The Court considered that the cost of said works cannot be required as an amount assimilated to rent and, therefore, it is not grounds for eviction.
The owner instituted the withdrawal of the tenant, based on the breach of the lease, which stipulated the obligation to sign and the cost of the repairs required by the tenant to keep the house in the same conditions as the receipt. .
Said claim was dismissed by the Court of First Instance and is now confirmed by the Court, upon hearing that only those whose payment the tenant must assume by legal mandate can be considered as "amounts assimilated to rent", and must be included in such concept not Notwithstanding those regulated in the Second Transitory Provision, section C), LAU 1994, provided that the legally required budgets concur.
Repair expenses
It should be noted that the amount claimed in the lawsuit corresponds to the cost of the work carried out by the lessor to repair both the existing fault in the facilities of the leased dwelling, as well as the damage caused to the premises as a result of said fault. located on the lower floor.
In this sense, the magistrates explain, it cannot be subsumed in any of the assumptions contemplated in said Provision, since it is not a service or supply for the benefit of the tenant, nor is it an amount that the tenant must assume by legal mandate such as the IBI or the garbage rate and it is not about amounts whose payment corresponds to the tenant in accordance with section C) of the Temporary Provision, in relation to art. 108 of the Urban Leasing Law 1964 (LAU). And it is that, underlining the resolution, although it came to recognize that the works carried out are “necessary repair works to keep the house in a state of service for the agreed use” regulated in said art. 108 LAU 1964, the first budget required in the norm does not concur so that the payment of said works is legally in charge of the lessee, since neither the repair works were requested by the lessee, nor were they agreed by judicial or administrative resolution. signature.
In short, the Court warns that, unless it admits the validity of the contractual clause that implies a waiver of the tenant's rights, in no case would the contract be terminated due to non-payment of those amounts through an eviction process.
