The dispute between a landlady and her tenant in El Masnou, Barcelona, began with accusations of works carried out in absentia and ended up revealing a scenario very different from what the housera expected. The court analyzed the opening of holes in the facade, the installation of a metal structure and even the transformation of a door into a window. In the end, he concluded that none of this changed the structure of the house nor justified ending a lease signed in 1977, which remains in force almost half a century later.
According to the Spanish digital newspaper Noticias Trabajo, the owner insisted that the tenant had disturbed the house beyond what was permitted and that she no longer lived there normally. He also defended the payment of more than four thousand and three hundred euros for damage allegedly caused to an exterior wall of the courtyard. The tenant responded that some interventions were old and had been tolerated by previous owners, ensuring that she was only absent from the property during the confinement period.
What counts as structural change
The first decision came from Court of First Instance number 2 of Mataró and ruled out any idea of relevant structural modification. The works existed, but, for the judges, they did not affect the solidity of the building nor constitute a serious attack on the configuration of the house.
The Barcelona Provincial Audience confirmed this reading and explained that the contract was subject to the old Urban Leases Law of 1964. This law provides, in article 114, no. 7, that there is only a basis for terminating the contract when unauthorized works modify the configuration of the dwelling or weaken the structure of the property. In this specific case, the court concluded that there was no relevant change to the structure or configuration of the house that would justify the end of the lease.
As the same source states, there was another important point. The metal structure placed on the facade had been known to the owner for several years. There was never a request for removal until 2020. For the court, this revealed tacit consent that ended up weighing in the final decision.
The accusation of lack of habitual residence
The owner also tried to prove that the tenant no longer lived in the house regularly and that this would allow her to move forward with vacating the house. The Spanish law applicable to the case, the old Urban Leases Law of 1964, only allows this possibility when it is demonstrated that the tenant was away, without just cause, for more than six months within the same calendar year.
No evidence of this prolonged period of absence emerged in the process. The explanation for absence during confinement was considered sufficient and had no impact on the contract. The Provincial Audience highlighted that “there is not a sufficient period of vacancy to consider the cause for resolution to be accredited” and also rejected this plea.
The role of the community in the outer wall
The discussion about the courtyard’s exterior wall also ended up not helping the owner. The court concluded that the responsibility for maintaining that wall lay with the condominium community and that the costs had already been borne collectively. There was, therefore, no reason to require the tenant to pay individual compensation.
According to , the decision kept the lease contract active and removed all claims for resolution. The sentence is not yet final and may be appealed to the Spanish Supreme Court or the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia.
How similar cases are dealt with in Portugal
When a situation of this kind arises in Portugal, the procedure usually involves a detailed check of the lease contract and the rules established by law.
Whenever work is carried out without authorization, it is advisable that the landlord communicate in writing the need to restore the initial condition and gather clear evidence of the intervention, such as dated photographs or testimonies. In many cases, direct dialogue resolves the situation, but the absence of agreement can lead to a more formal legal assessment.
If conflicts persist, the next step is usually mediation or going to court. In general terms, urban leasing legislation only allows the termination of the contract due to unauthorized works when these substantially alter the external structure or internal layout of the property, or cause relevant deterioration, leaving out small, easily reversible modifications.
Regarding abandonment or lack of habitual residence, Portuguese law and jurisprudence also follow demanding criteria: it is necessary to demonstrate that the tenant no longer uses the property as a residence in an effective and lasting way, and not just explainable temporary absences. Each case is analyzed in detail and the court only moves towards resolution when the facts leave little room for doubt
Also read:
