This owner attacks his tenant for sublet … and must pay him 3,000 euros!

The sublet of housing is strictly regulated. For donors, beware, however, in the proverb according to which “who does not say a word agrees”. Proof with a recent decision of the Court of Cassation.

• 
  

  To safeguard
  

  
  
  

  Saved
  

Owner lessor From a two-room apartment that you have rented for a few months, you feed certain concerns at the start of a long holidays. And if he took your tenant the desire to sublet Your apartment during his absence this summer? With the key the risk of degradation if the sub-tenants are not most delicate … or even squat of your property in the worst case! Note that article 8 of law n ° 89-462 of July 6, 1989, “Tending to improve rental reports”,, prohibited sublet.

But, if the landlord wishes, he can authorize his tenant to sublet, specifying it in the lease. The subletting contract, passed between the tenant and the sub-tenants, is not governed by the law of July 6, 1989 but by the Civil Code. Which provides in particular that the rent of the sublet must be approved by the landlord landlord and that it cannot be superior to the main rent, paid by the tenant to the owner. THE illegal sub-belts are restored to the latter.

In Paris, 230 dwellings at less than 5,000 euros per m2 on sale in September: how to take advantage of it?

Assignment of the tenant to court

An owner, whose case is reported in a decision rendered on April 10, 2025 by the Court of Cassation, and spotted by the law firm Neu Janicki, had established with his tenant a contract of lease expressly authorizing sublet. In detail, the contract indicated that the subletting agreement had to comply with a standard model appearing in the appendix to the lease and that the tenant was required to send a copy of the under -growth conventions to the lessor within 15 days of their signature.

However, the owner has assigned his tenant to courtinvoking the non-compliance with the legal provisions relating to the amount of the subvallers received. Concretely, she reproached her tenant for having received rents from sub-tenant when she had not given her his written agreement on the amount of these sub-employers. The owner thus asked the justice to the termination of the lease, the tenant’s expulsion and his conviction to pay him occupation compensation.

Real estate: François Bayrou attacks the colossal “unproductive” heritage of the State

Tacit agreement on the amount of rents

His request was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Paris, on the grounds that she “Could not take advantage of an absence of agreement on the price of the underside as soon as the tenant had sent him all the sublet contracts (in accordance with what was provided by the lease), on which was indicated the amount of the underside”. Unhappy, the owner was provided in a cassation. Without success. The Court of Cassation underlines that “The tenant has always complied with the stipulations of the lease” By sending the owner the copy of the sublet conventions, “On which the amount of sub-belts appeared and that The owner did not formulate any protest»».

Like the Paris Court of Appeal, the Court of Cassation deduces “The existence of a tacit agreement of the Bailleresse (owner) on the amount of the reduction rents regularly brought to its attention”. The Court of Cassation therefore rejected the owner’s appeal and ordered him to pay his tenant 3,000 euros for compensation for the legal costs incurred. This is taken who thought they were taking.