Replacement housing is available to persons who use the premises without the consent of the municipality, but have indirect title
On November 15 this year. The Supreme Court, after hearing a legal issue in the Civil Chamber in the case numbered III CZP 49/18, adopted the following resolution:
A person using a dwelling on the basis of a lending agreement entered into with a tenant of the premises without the consent of the landlord as required by Article 6882 of the Civil Code is a tenant within the meaning of Article 2(1)(1) of the Act of June 21, 2001 on the protection of tenants' rights, the housing stock of the municipality and amendments to the Civil Code (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2018, item 1234, as amended).
The Supreme Court stressed that in the case law of the Supreme Court, the concept of "tenant" under the Law of June 21, 2001 on the Protection of Tenants' Rights is understood very broadly.
He stressed that the law is primarily protective in nature, implementing the state's social obligations to citizens. A manifestation of this is the prevention of homelessness. Hence, entitlement to social housing is in principle granted in any case where the person occupying the premises and subject to eviction did not occupy the premises arbitrarily. The direction of interpretation is that if the person who occupies the premises has any legal title to the premises, he is considered a tenant - regardless of whether this title is directly derived from the right of ownership, or whether it is an indirect right, i.e. derived from the tenant of the premises.
According to Article 6882 of the Civil Code, without the consent of the lessor, the lessee may not give the premises or any part thereof for free use or sublet it. The Supreme Court noted that the lack of the indicated consent does not mean that the action is invalid or ineffective, since in such a case the sanction provided for the lessor (the person who entered into the agreement giving indirect title to the premises) is the possibility of terminating the basic agreement.
The Supreme Court pointed out that this solution provides more flexibility and allows the landlord to decide whether to terminate the contract or not; there is no automatism here. This solution should be considered better, more aligned with the purpose of the law, as it provides protection to the landlord and, on the other hand, protects those who occupy the premises.
