Ihe owner-lessor wishing to take over his property to live in must, when his tenant is elderly and of modest means, find him an equivalent apartment, in the same geographical area. It is article 15-III of the law of July 6, 1989 which imposes it, in order to protect this type of tenant from the risk of finding themselves in non-decent housing, when their lease is not renewed.
However, in certain tight rental areas, it is impossible to find an equivalent apartment. The owner cannot therefore recover his property, as the following case shows.
In 2017, the X give leave to their tenants, who live rue Dauphine, in the 6e district of Paris. They want to leave Seine-Saint-Denis, where they live, to settle there, so that their son can be educated “ in a good establishment”.
The tenants, Mr. and Mr.me Z, in the premises since 1982, refuse to leave. When the Xs assign them, they challenge their reason for recovery. They ensure that the difference in level between the Parisian schools and those of Seine-Saint-Denis, invoked by the X, is not based “on no objective criteria”. The Paris Court of Appeal rules against them, June 21, 2022.
She judges that “the choice to enroll their child in a Parisian school or college rather than in the establishment on which they currently depend does not have to be called into question either by justice or by the tenants”because he “comes within the exercise of parental authority ».
She still thinks that “ the mere fact that the X spouses have two children and that the dwelling consisting of a single main room only has a surface area of 28.32 square meters is not enough to make the leave fraudulent, since the lessors have perfectly the right to give preference to their place of residence (sic) their comfort ».
572 euros for 30 square meters
But it cancels the leave, because the Xs have not presented an alternative offer, when Mr. Z is over 65 and the household’s reference tax income (26,154 euros) is below the ceiling (34,593 euros). ) allowing him to benefit from social housing.
The Court of Cassation, before which the X appealed, accepted (22-21763) to question the Constitutional Council: the obligation imposed on the landlord to relocate his tenant “within the geographical limits defined by the law of 1er September 1948 » (Article 13a), i.e. close to its current address, does it not infringe “disproportionate » to his right to property, enshrined in article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, taking into account “the impossibility » in which it finds itself, with regard to the private rental market, to satisfy it?
You have 32.53% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.