The landlords also demanded rent for August – the court admonished them for abusing their rights

The Constitutional Court recently dealt with a case that fundamentally clarifies the boundaries of landlords' property rights in situations involving overlapping tenancy agreements for the same apartment. The dispute arose from a seemingly simple question – does a landlord have the right to demand rent from the original tenant for a period when someone else was already living in the apartment?

The whole story began with a lease agreement between two individuals (the landlords) and a commercial company (the tenant). The tenant duly paid the security deposit and used the apartment in accordance with the agreement. However, a problem then arose with the termination of the lease. According to the tenant, the lease ended no later than July 27, 2021, when she returned the last set of keys to the landlords. The landlords, however, saw it differently – they claimed the lease lasted longer and demanded rent for August 2021 as well.

But here's the crucial fact: at the same time, the landlords rented the same apartment to another tenant, who duly paid them rent for August 2021. The landlords collected money from this new tenant, while simultaneously demanding the same from the original tenant. In practice, they wanted rent twice for one month – from two different parties for the use of the same apartment.

Courts Did Not Permit Abuse of Rights

The District Court, the Municipal Court in Prague, and the Supreme Court all agreed on a clear conclusion: the landlords' demand for double rent constitutes an act contrary to good morals and a clear abuse of rights. The courts acknowledged, however, that the existence of a double lease in itself does not invalidate either of the lease agreements. It is important to emphasize this – a landlord can indeed theoretically enter into multiple lease agreements for the same apartment.

The problem arises, however, when the landlord tries to profit from both agreements simultaneously. When the new tenant actually occupies the apartment and pays rent for it, the original tenant's right to use the property is effectively excluded. She simply cannot use the apartment, because someone else lives there. And yet she should pay? The courts said a clear no.

The courts' reasoning is based on the principle that a right cannot be exercised in a manner contrary to its meaning and purpose. Rent is consideration for the ability to use an apartment. If the landlord himself prevented the tenant from using the apartment by renting it to someone else, he cannot fairly demand payment for a service he did not provide during that period.

Damage to the Kitchen Unit as Normal Wear and Tear

During the proceedings, the landlords further demanded reimbursement for the cost of repairing the kitchen unit – an amount of approximately thirty thousand Czech crowns. They argued that the countertop was damaged. However, after hearing evidence, the courts concluded that the minor aesthetic damage found, in the form of a single scratch, falls under normal wear and tear of the apartment according to Section 2293, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code.

This provision is extremely important for practical application. A tenant is obliged to return the apartment in the condition in which they received it, taking into account normal wear and tear from proper use. Minor cosmetic defects that arise from normal use of an item are not damage for which the tenant would be liable. A single scratch on a kitchen countertop is a typical example of normal wear and tear – it is practically impossible to use a kitchen for an extended period without minor surface imperfections occurring.

The complainants (landlords) did not accept the decisions of the general courts and appealed to the Constitutional Court. They argued that the corrective principle of good morals must be applied very restrictively and that the mere existence of a lease agreement does not prevent the owner from entering into another lease agreement. This is understandable – however, the courts did not state that landlords could not enter into a second agreement. They only stated that landlords cannot demand performance from both agreements simultaneously for the same period when only one tenant was actually fulfilling their obligations.

For real estate rental businesses, this case offers several practical lessons. Firstly, when lease agreements overlap, it is crucial to carefully consider from whom and for what period rent can legitimately be demanded. Secondly, when terminating a lease, it is advisable to have a clearly documented moment of handing over the apartment and keys. And thirdly, when accounting for the security deposit, it is necessary to distinguish between actual damage and normal wear and tear – not every cosmetic defect justifies a deduction from the deposit.

The Constitutional Court will now address the question of whether the general courts, by their decision, violated the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the complainants, particularly the right to judicial protection. The outcome of this review will show whether the outlined approach to the issue of dual tenancy is constitutionally compliant, or whether the matter will need to be re-evaluated.

Source: Constitutional Court, file no. II. ÚS 98/26