The Constitutional Court has not accepted the protection appeal presented by a tenant against the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice which confirmed the termination of his lease and theobligation to return the home to the propertyaccording to the judgment published in the BOPA. The resolution concludes that fundamental rights have not been violated of the appellant and that the judicial decisions are duly substantiated.
The legal case has its origin in one rental contract signed in September 2017. The property claimed in court the termination of the contractual relationship and the return of the property. The Batllia he estimated in January 2026 the demand and it goes order the tenant to leave the homesatisfy the outstanding rents and pay 582.33 euros per month in the form of improper employment until the delivery of the property. The High Court confirmed this decision last May and it is the decision that the tenant took to the TC.
The tenant appealed to the Constitutional Court claiming that he had not properly received notice of the property’s intention not to renew the contract The argument was that depositing a letter in the mailbox did not guarantee that the communication had effectively reached the addressee, according to the judgment. And he added that he was entitled to take advantage of the statutory three-year extension provided for in the housing lease regulations. The appellant requested the annulment of the sentence, the recognition of the contractual extension and the withdrawal of the sentence upon the payment of court costs.
The Constitutional considers that the notification had been accredited through a certificate from the company that had made it, photographs and a video showing that the letter had been deposited in the letterbox. The magistrates also affirm that the Superior had adequately justified why the extension of rents was not applicable in this case. The reasons were that the extension approved by Government legislation it was not automatically applied due to the lack of agreement between the parties and specifies that the property had correctly notified the will not to renew the contract and the tenant had not invoked his right of extension. The Constitutional Court considers that this interpretation is duly justified and does not violate the appellant’s rights.
The October 12 resolution published today states that the appellant he had been able to defend his claims before the two judicial bodies and rules out any arbitrariness in the resolutions. The decision remains in effectobligation to return the home and satisfy the judicially fixed amounts.
