Post by account_disabled on Jan 31, 2024 9:01:21 GMT
In property rental contracts, there is a valid clause that excludes compensation for improvements and the right to retain the amounts spent. Applying this thesis, set out in Summary 335 of the Superior Court of Justice, the Court of Justice of Goiás denied a request made by a tenant to be compensated for improvements made to the rented property. 123RF Lessee can only charge for improvements to rented property if there is no contrary provision in the contract. 123RF The action was filed by the property owners against a construction material company, which was in default.
The authors requested, in addition to the Buy Phone Number List eviction, payment of the amounts owed. In its defense, however, the company claimed to have invested around R$190,000 in works on the property, an amount that should be deducted from the debt. In the first instance, a sentence was handed down that judged the company's argument to be valid. The owners appealed, claiming that there was no contractual provision for retaining the amounts spent on improvements, and the 3rd Civil Chamber of the TJ-GO accepted the appeal. According to the rapporteur, judge Gerson Santana Cintra, article 35 of the Tenancy Law (Law 8,245/1991) states that improvements will only be compensated when there is no express provision to the contrary in the contract.
Which is not the case with the contract analyzed, he concluded. According to the rapporteur, clause VI of the contract signed between the parties is clear in providing for the possibility of improvements by the lessee, however, he would not have the right to reimbursement or the right to retention. "In this sense, such a clause does not violate objective good faith, as the tenant's waiver of compensation for improvements, even if useful or necessary, is widely considered valid", he concluded.
The authors requested, in addition to the Buy Phone Number List eviction, payment of the amounts owed. In its defense, however, the company claimed to have invested around R$190,000 in works on the property, an amount that should be deducted from the debt. In the first instance, a sentence was handed down that judged the company's argument to be valid. The owners appealed, claiming that there was no contractual provision for retaining the amounts spent on improvements, and the 3rd Civil Chamber of the TJ-GO accepted the appeal. According to the rapporteur, judge Gerson Santana Cintra, article 35 of the Tenancy Law (Law 8,245/1991) states that improvements will only be compensated when there is no express provision to the contrary in the contract.
Which is not the case with the contract analyzed, he concluded. According to the rapporteur, clause VI of the contract signed between the parties is clear in providing for the possibility of improvements by the lessee, however, he would not have the right to reimbursement or the right to retention. "In this sense, such a clause does not violate objective good faith, as the tenant's waiver of compensation for improvements, even if useful or necessary, is widely considered valid", he concluded.