A case decided in Spain clarified a frequently asked question regarding rent: continuing to pay rent after the end of the contract does not mean, in itself, that the tenant has the right to remain in the house. The court decision comes in a context of discussion about contracts, renewals and social leasing.
According to , a Spanish website specialized in legal and labor matters, based on a decision by the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona, the court confirmed the eviction of a tenant who remained in the house after the end of the contract, despite continuing to pay the rent and claiming a verbal agreement with the owner.
According to the same source and Civil Sentence 414/2025, of June 26, 2025, of Section 13 of the Barcelona Provincial Audience, these elements were not sufficient to automatically extend the contractual relationship.
What happened in this case
The lease contract had been signed on February 7, 2017, with an initial duration of three years.
After this period, the legal extension of one year provided for in the Spanish Urban Leases Law, as amended at the time, was applied. Subsequently, according to the decision, the contract was tacitly renewed for annual periods, under the Spanish Civil Code, since the rent was fixed per year.
On August 10, 2021, the owner company, Divarian Propiedad, SA, notified the lessee, via burofax, of its intention not to renew the contract, setting its expiration date on February 6, 2022.
Remaining in the house does not guarantee rights
Despite this communication, the tenant remained in the house. In his defense, he claimed the existence of a verbal agreement that would allow him to remain in the property and maintained that a new social rental contract should be proposed before the eviction action. Even so, the court did not accept these arguments.
What does the law say about the end of the contract
The decision was based on the legislation applicable to urban leasing in Spain, namely the Urban Leases Law and the Spanish Civil Code.
According to the judges, once the contract term has been met and the intention of non-renewal has been clearly communicated, the owner can request the return of the property.
Continuing to pay the rent does not change this situation. In the decision, the court understood that this payment was only a consequence of the possession and use of the house while the tenant remained in the location, not creating a new contract or a new automatic extension.
The issue of verbal agreements
Another point analyzed was the alleged verbal agreement between the parties. The court concluded that this agreement was not proven. According to the decision, it was up to the tenant to demonstrate the existence of this verbal renewal, but sufficient evidence was not presented in this regard.
Furthermore, the burofax sent by the owner in August 2021 pointed in the opposite direction, expressly communicating the desire to end the lease in February 2022.
Social leasing did not require the new proposal
With regard to the social rental regime, the decision also brought a relevant clarification.
The tenant argued that she should have received a proposal for a new social rental contract, based on Catalan legislation. However, the Barcelona Provincial Audience recalled that the obligation to renew or establish a new mandatory social lease, provided for in amendments to Catalan Law 24/2015, was declared unconstitutional and null by Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 120/2024.
The Spanish Constitutional Court considered that these rules exceeded autonomous powers in procedural matters and the basis of contractual obligations, also affecting the owner’s contractual autonomy.
Therefore, the Provincial Audience understood that, in this case, there was no legally enforceable duty to impose a new lease solution before the eviction.
Decision confirms eviction
Given these elements, the Barcelona Provincial Hearing confirmed the sentence of the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no. 3 of Terrassa and maintained the eviction of the tenant.
The court considered that the contract was effectively terminated, that the owner’s communication was valid and that there was no right to renewal.
The case can still go to a higher court
Despite the decision, the process was not completely closed. According to Noticias Trabajo and the court decision itself, the sentence was not final and could still be subject to an appeal for cassation, as long as the applicable legal requirements were met.
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, the framework follows a similar logic, although with its own rules. According to the Civil Code, as drafted in the New Urban Lease Regime, rental contracts for housing may have a fixed term and be automatically renewed, unless renewal is opposed under the legally stipulated terms.
Article 1,097 of the Civil Code allows the landlord to prevent automatic renewal by communicating it to the tenant, as long as the applicable deadlines, form and legal limits are met.
From then on, the tenant’s stay in the house does not automatically create a new contract, even if he continues to pay an amount equivalent to the rent. Article 1,045 of the Civil Code provides that, if the leased thing is not returned as soon as the contract ends, the lessee is obliged, by way of compensation, to pay the stipulated rent or rental amount until the refund is made. In case of delay, this compensation may be doubled.
In other words, also in Portugal, payment after the end of the contract can be understood as compensation for the use of the property, not conferring, in itself, the right to maintenance of occupation.
Also read:
