Explanation of Article 424
The article completes the provisions regarding interference with the tenant's enjoyment of the leased property. The first paragraph clarifies the ruling on interference by a third party if it is not based on a legal reason, stating that the landlord is not liable for such interference. This includes any physical act by a third party without claiming a right to the leased property, such as harming the tenant or preventing them from enjoying the leased property by force, or establishing a factory that disturbs their peace, thereby hindering their full enjoyment.
The reason for the landlord not being liable for interference by a third party is that the landlord has not breached their obligation to enable the tenant to enjoy the leased property. The tenant can counter this interference by filing a lawsuit against the third party.
As for the effect of interference by a third party if it is not based on a legal reason, the paragraph distinguishes between two cases:
The first case: If the interference by a third party does not deprive the tenant of enjoying the leased property but affects the completeness of the enjoyment, in this case, the tenant cannot request the termination of the contract or a reduction in rent; rather, they are obliged to pay the full rent and can demand compensation from the party causing the interference for the damage according to the rules of tort liability.
The second case: If the interference by a third party leads to the tenant being deprived of enjoying the leased property, the tenant in this case can request the termination of the contract or a reduction in rent unless they are the cause of the interference.
The tenant's right in the second case to request termination or a reduction in rent is not considered a guarantee against interference; because guaranteeing interference gives the tenant, in addition to that, the right to demand compensation from the landlord if there is a justification for it. The landlord is not liable for compensation even if the tenant is harmed because the damage was not caused by the landlord, and the tenant can demand compensation from the party causing the damage according to the rules of tort liability.
The second paragraph of the article addresses the ruling on interference by a public authority if it is not based on a legal reason. It clarifies that if an action by a public authority results in a reduction in enjoyment, such as if a public authority evacuates parts of a fully leased commercial market, or carries out works and repairs on the road that lead to a significant reduction in the enjoyment for which the leased property was rented, the tenant has the option to request a reduction in rent because the reduction in enjoyment corresponds to a reduction in rent. If a reduction in rent is granted, it is reduced not only from the time of the claim but from the time the reduction in enjoyment occurred. The tenant, instead of requesting a reduction in rent, can choose to request the termination of the contract, and the general rules of judicial termination apply; the court can reject the request for termination if the reduction in enjoyment is not substantial and can limit the tenant's right to compensation, applying the second paragraph of Article (110). The tenant, along with the request for termination, can request a reduction in rent from the time of the interference until the termination.
The end of the paragraph clarifies that if the interference by the public authority is due to a reason for which the landlord is responsible, such as if the public authority evacuates parts of the leased property due to the landlord's failure to meet certain legal requirements, the tenant in this case, in addition to their right to request a reduction in rent or termination, can demand compensation from the landlord for the damage caused by this. As for the loss incurred due to the loss of some benefit, compensation for it is the reduction in rent, and this ruling applies if the tenant chooses termination; they can demand compensation for the damage caused by the termination, and for the period preceding the termination, compensation for the loss of its benefit is by reducing the rent.
If the landlord is not the cause of the interference by the public authority, the tenant cannot demand compensation from the landlord for the damage in this case, but their right is limited to requesting a reduction in rent or requesting termination as previously stated.
Related To
Article 424
-
The lessor shall not be obliged to warrant the leased thing against any interruption caused by a third party if it is not based on legal grounds. If, however, the cause of such interruption is not attributable to the lessee, and if such interruption prevents the lessee’s use and enjoyment of the leased thing, the lessee may demand termination of the lease or reduction of the rent.
-
If an act by a public entity adversely affects the use and enjoyment of the leased thing, the lessee may demand termination of the lease or reduction of the rent, without prejudice to his right to claim compensation from the lessor if the reason for such act is attributable to him.