Articulo 11 de la lau

Lau 2019

The legal regime of urban leases is currently regulated by the revised text of the 1964 Urban Leases Law, approved by Decree 4104/1964, of December 24, 1964.

In view of these circumstances, Royal Decree-Law 2/1985, of April 30, 1985, on Economic Policy Measures, introduced two modifications in the regulation of the urban leasing regime that have had an enormous impact on the subsequent development of this sector. These modifications were the freedom to convert dwellings into business premises and the freedom to agree on the duration of the lease, eliminating the mandatory nature of the forced extension in urban lease contracts.

Royal Decree-Law 2/1985 has had mixed results. On the one hand, it has allowed the downward trend in the percentage of rented housing that was occurring at the beginning of the eighties to be halted, although it has not been able to substantially reverse the trend. On the other hand, however, it has generated enormous instability in the rental housing market by giving rise to a phenomenon of short-term contracts. This in turn has produced a very significant increase in rents, which has been aggravated by its simultaneousness in time with a period of rising prices in the real estate market.

Lau 2021

Urban leases. Use other than housing. Business premises. Cancellation. Inapplicability by analogy of art. 11 of the LAU to uses other than housing. Exclusion of the rebus sic stantibus clause. Art. 11 of the LAU regulates the withdrawal for the lease of dwellings, but a similar case is not included in the lease for a use other than housing, a figure that does not require specific protection as it is subordinated to the existing agreements between the parties, for which reason an analogical application of the precept is not applicable as it lacks identity of reason. Thus, in the case at hand, there was nothing to prevent the parties from agreeing to early termination, but they did not do so. Article 4.3 of the LAU determines that the parties shall govern their relations in accordance with the principle of free will, so that the judgment under appeal infringes this provision insofar as it imposes the application of article 11 of the LAU, which is not provided for leases for use other than housing, unbalancing the economic substratum that the parties took into account to agree the contract, altering the basis of the contract. The resolution under appeal allows an early and unilateral waiver of the term of the contract, when the contract foresaw that the term would be mandatory for both parties.

Lease agreement

One of the questions that we most frequently receive at Sepín’s consultation service, within the field of urban leases, is what happens if the tenant decides to leave the leased property before the term established in the contract. How should this be done? What are the consequences? Will the tenant have to pay the remaining rent until the expiration of the contract?

We focus here on putting some clarity on housing leases after January 1, 1995, governed by the Urban Leases Law 29/1994, of November 24, and taking into account the reform carried out by Law 4/2013, with entry into force on June 6, 2013, which modified many of the requirements for this early termination of the tenant, contemplated in art. 11.

In contracts prior to June 6, 2013, the minimum notice period of communication is two months, having to resort to a notification system that allows accrediting the receipt by the lessor, for example, by notary or burofax.

Articulo 11 de la lau en línea

– The minimum notice period is two months, and the lessor must use a notification system that allows accreditation of receipt by the lessor, via notary, bureaufax, telegram with acknowledgement of receipt.

– The compensation will be the amount equivalent to the rent corresponding to the unfulfilled term. This is the issue that has changed the most since then up to the current contracts, where it is no longer possible to demand the totality of the rents.

However, in those leases prior to May 9, 1985, imperatively subject to the regime of forced extension of art. 57 of the Revised Text of the LAU of 1964, logically such compensation for the termination will never be requested by the lessor, since the property has been surprisingly recovered.