Last modified: October 2021
Renting housing has long become a simple and popular means of solving housing problems. Such a deal is beneficial for both parties. However, over time, the situation may change: the tenant no longer has the need to rent housing, or the rental conditions or location of the apartment are no longer satisfactory. The landlord is no longer satisfied with the tenant, there is no further possibility of providing the premises for rent, or he is even planning to sell the living space. There is a need to terminate the rental agreement. It's good if both sides agree on this. But what to do if one of the parties wants to terminate the contract early, but the other is not happy with this?
The employer's right to terminate the social tenancy agreement
At any time, the citizen-tenant of the dwelling is free to stop using the premises. Subject to the actual termination of use of the housing, the social tenancy agreement is subject to termination.
An important condition for the annulment of the legal relationship of the parties to the contract is the consent of the tenant’s family to terminate the contractual relationship.
Moreover, consent received orally from family members is not enough; it is necessary to obtain from them written evidence of their consent, drawn up in the prescribed manner.
It should be remembered that in accordance with the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, namely Article 71, temporarily absent persons also have rights and obligations in relation to social tenancy premises; accordingly, for the legal and lawful termination of a social tenancy agreement, it is necessary to obtain the consent of temporarily absent citizens who are representatives of the family employer.
Reasons and circumstances
How to terminate the contract? What are the conditions and grounds for this ? There are various circumstances that can trigger this process.
Everyone is obliged to remember that in such a precedent the force of the law must always be taken into account, whether for the conclusion of a contract or its termination.
The tenant initiates the procedure for terminating the contract, and must also take into account the opinions of other people living in the rental area. It is the employer's responsibility to notify the lessor of the upcoming termination of the contract . The landlord himself also has every right to apply the effect of breaking the contract prematurely , before the expiration of the period specified earlier.
When the person who acts as the tenant, or his cohabitants, act unlawfully and deliberately damage the rented territory , make payment late or do not make it at all, then the landlord has the privilege to terminate the contract. Read about the rights and responsibilities of a landlord on our website.
Grounds for termination of a social tenancy agreement
The law establishes the following conditions for termination of the contract:
- Agreement between the parties to the contract is the most favorable outcome of contractual relations. In this case, this basis does not cause adverse legal consequences for the parties to the contract.
- Initiative of a person using the premises as a tenant. This provision, as noted, is implemented under a certain condition: obtaining the consent of the employer’s relatives living with him as a family.
- Destruction of housing. In other words, the complete loss of the premises’ functional purpose, the actual destruction of the housing facility, its condition in which it is impossible to use the housing.
- Departure of the employer with his family to another home. The agreement can be considered terminated from the moment the specified citizens vacate the residential territory.
- Landlord's initiative. Can be implemented only upon the occurrence of certain reasons. And only as a result of legal proceedings.
- The death of a citizen-tenant, if he used the premises and lived in it alone, also means the termination of the social tenancy agreement for residential premises.
The procedure for terminating a social tenancy agreement
Termination of a social tenancy agreement can occur without formalization by the parties, in cases where there has been an official, recorded warning of termination of the agreement. If the tenant wants to end the relationship regarding a specific home and insure himself against further claims from the landlord, the law provides for the delivery of housing under an acceptance certificate.
This document indicates that the tenant and his family have vacated the property, handed it over in good condition, without serious violations or damage, and handed over the keys to the premises to the landlord. If damage to the housing is identified that requires any work, the landlord has the right to legally demand that the defects be corrected within a specific period.
What laws govern it?
The Civil and Housing Codes of the Russian Federation regulate the termination of a tenancy agreement.
This is clearly written in Part 2 of Chapter 35 of Article 687, Article 688 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Chapter 10 of Article 101-103 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on the termination and termination of a rental agreement for specialized residential premises, which talks about the eviction of citizens from such premises.
Termination of social rent in court
The lessor has the right to file a claim for termination of the contract in court. The application is submitted in writing, one copy is sent to the employer. The application must contain information about the court to which it is sent, information about the employer and the lessor.
The statement describes the reason for terminating the contract and indicates the rule of law that, in the opinion of the landlord, has been violated.
In court, the landlord must prove the tenant’s guilt and illegal behavior that led to the filing of the claim. The employer has the right to present arguments regarding his innocence. The court makes a decision taking into account information received from both parties. Legal consequences for the parties occur after receipt of the court decision and its entry into force.
Changes and termination of the social tenancy agreement for residential premises are made in accordance with the requirements of Art. 82 and 83 of the RF Housing Code and taking into account the general rules on amendment and termination of civil contracts established in Art. 450-453 Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
It should be noted that termination of a housing tenancy agreement leads to its early termination. The current housing legislation has a special article 82 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation with the title “Changing the social tenancy agreement for residential premises.” According to it, the social tenancy agreement for residential premises is changed in two cases:
1) at the request of employers united into one family, and not merging;
2) at the request of a legally capable family member to change the employer.
There are two procedures for changing and terminating a contract: extrajudicial and judicial.
Extrajudicial procedure is used to amend and terminate a contract by agreement of the parties. As general rules defining the procedure for reaching an agreement between the parties, the rules of Chapter. 28 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the conclusion of an agreement, i.e. one party approaches the other with a corresponding proposal and can give consent (acceptance) to conclude a contract. The amendment and termination of the contract must be made in the same form as the concluded contract.
According to Part 1 of Art. 81 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, a change in the contract occurs at the request of one of the parties to the contract - employers and members of their families - out of court, which is a deviation from the general rules of civil legislation (Articles 450-453 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Regarding Part 2 of Art. 82 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, it should be noted that a legally capable (and not an adult) family member can demand recognition of himself as a tenant with the consent of the remaining family members and the landlord.
At the same time, the legislator did not determine the grounds for refusal on the part of the lessor and did not oblige the latter to motivate the decision. However, the landlord's refusal can be appealed in court.
When an agreement is subject to amendment or termination in court, it is necessary to take into account that a claim can be filed by a party in court only after receiving a refusal from the other party to the proposal to amend or terminate the agreement or failure to receive a response to this proposal in a timely manner, and in its absence - within 30 days. day period (clause 2 of article 452 of the Civil Code). In court, a contract can be modified or terminated through a civil rights claim.
According to paragraph 2 of Art. 450 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a contract can be changed at the request of one of the parties by a court decision only if there are significant changes in the circumstances from which the parties proceeded when concluding the contract. Thus, the ruling of the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court states that “a change in circumstances is considered significant when they have changed so much that, if the parties could have reasonably foreseen this, the contract would not have been concluded at all[1].
Significant changes in housing tenancy are evidenced by cases when the premises are no longer suitable for permanent residence, are in disrepair, etc.
If the contract is amended, the obligations of the parties remain unchanged.
Previously, the RSFSR Housing Code provided for the possibility of changing the rental agreement for residential premises at the request of a family member of the tenant.
The new code does not provide for the allocation or division of residential premises occupied by citizens under a social tenancy agreement at all. Thus, the changes provided for by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation limit the housing rights of citizens in comparison with previously existing legislation.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 20, 2006 No. 225-0 indicated that, in contrast to the previously effective legislation (Article 86 of the RSFSR Housing Code), the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, namely its Art. 82 does not provide for the right of an adult family member of the tenant to demand the conclusion of a separate rental agreement for residential premises with him. Responding to the complaint of citizen S.V. Garanina for infringement of her rights and the fact that Art. 82 of the RF Housing Code contradicts Part 2 of Art. 56 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which laws should not be issued that abolish or diminish the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the Constitutional Court o.[2] Thus, the Constitutional Court avoided giving a reasoned answer to the applicant on the merits.
R.D. Zorkoltsev believes that S.V. Garanina “should have filed a claim for the division of residential premises and the conclusion of a separate rental agreement for residential premises.” It would be possible to carry out division in this case, which would exclude an appeal to the Constitutional Court[3].
At the same time, G. Harutunyan, referring to the Introductory Law to housing relations that arose before its entry into force, comes to the conclusion that the Housing Code applies only to those rights and obligations that arise after its entry into force. Based on this, he believes that:
1) a former family member of the employer has the same rights as the employer, including the right to demand the conclusion of a social tenancy agreement with him in the manner and on the conditions provided for in Chapter 8 Housing Codes of the Russian Federation;
2) the former member of the tenant’s family is independently responsible for his obligations arising from the corresponding (separate) social rental agreement (Part 4 of Article 69 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation);
3) The Housing Code does not exclude the possibility of the existence of a separate rental agreement in a separate apartment (Article 82 of the Housing Code); The residential complex does not contain any prohibitions on changing rental agreements and concluding a rental agreement in one apartment[4].
Obligations are considered changed from the moment the parties agree to amend the contract, and when amending the contract in court - from the moment the court decision to amend the contract enters into legal force.
A social tenancy agreement can be terminated at any time by agreement of the parties.
It should be borne in mind that according to paragraph 15 of Art. 15 of the Federal Law of May 27, 1998 “On the Status of Military Personnel” provides that in the event of vacancy of residential premises occupied by military personnel and members of their families living with them, with the exception of residential premises owned by them, these premises are provided to other military personnel and members of their families. It should be taken into account that the Federal Law of August 22, 2004 No. 122-FZ “On amendments to the legislative experiences of the Russian Federation and the recognition of certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation as invalid” did not change the provisions of the Federal Law “On the Status of Military Personnel” that establish the right for re-occupancy.
A social tenancy agreement for residential premises may be terminated by the tenant at any time with the written consent of his family members living with the tenant. According to V.D. Ruzanova, termination of a residential tenancy agreement is an act of will, which by its legal nature is a unilateral or bilateral transaction[5].
Termination of a contract means the end of the legal connection that existed between its participants, either as a result of its rupture, or as a result of an event independent of the will of the participants, or by agreement between them or by the will of one of them.
The traditional theoretical approach to the relationship between the concepts of “termination of a contract” and “termination of a contract” is that termination is a generic concept that includes termination.
ABOUT. Novikova writes that “in Art. 83 of the RF Housing Code, this traditional approach to the relationship between the concepts of “termination of a contract” and “termination of a contract” is violated. The grounds for termination of a social tenancy agreement are disclosed in parts 1-4 of Art. 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. Then, in part 5 of Art. 86 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation provides that a rental agreement for residential premises is terminated due to the loss (destruction) of residential premises, or with the death of a tenant living alone. Thus, termination of the contract is not included in the cases of its termination”[6].
To comply with traditional legal views and eliminate existing contradictions, she proposes to “amend Article 83 of the RF Housing Code.
In part one, disclose cases of termination of a social tenancy agreement:
1) termination of the contract;
2) loss (destruction) of residential premises;
3) death of a tenant living alone.
Then, in part 2 of Art. 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, disclose the grounds for termination of the contract”[7].
It is noteworthy that in Part 3 of Art. 83 of the Housing Code states that “in the event of the departure of the tenant and his family members to another place of residence, the social rental agreement for residential premises is considered terminated from the date of departure.”
In this regard, the opinion of S.D. is of interest. Radchenko, who believes that:
1. Departure must be associated specifically with a change of place of residence - this is not a departure for study or on a business trip. At the same time, the testimony of the witness that he has not seen this person for a long time cannot be taken into account without clarifying the reasons for the absence of the person who left and his desire to retain the right to housing.
2. evidence of the absence of this circumstance is recognized as: maintaining registration, making utility payments, service in a clinic at the place of residence, taking measures to exchange residential premises;
3. voluntariness of departure, which can be proven by witness testimony, written statements to the police department[8]. In the legislation, various terms are used to denote actions aimed at the withdrawal of one of the participants on the employer’s side from legal relations: in Part 3 of Art. 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation is “traveling to another place of residence”, in Art. 686 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - “disposal”, which is more consistent with the meaning: to leave, retire, leave a place, be absent. There are no special rules on the regulation of relations arising when some participants on the tenant’s side leave the legal relationship of housing tenancy;
At the same time, it should be recognized that it is appropriate that the departure of individual members of the tenant’s family to another permanent place of residence is the basis for recognizing them as having lost the right to use residential premises provided under a social tenancy agreement.
Having considered the claim for termination of the rental agreement and deregistration of Mr. S., the Federal Court of the Sovetsky District of Samara satisfied it. Canceling this decision, the judicial panel for civil cases of the Samara Regional Court indicated that law enforcement practice is based on the fact that, in accordance with the requirements of Part 4, 71, Art. 69 and art. 83 part 3 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, a former member of the tenant’s family can be recognized as having lost the right to reside in residential premises only if he left for permanent residence and voluntarily renounced his rights and obligations under the social tenancy agreement.
The judge’s decision does not contain a judgment as to whether citizen S. left the disputed apartment for another permanent place of residence. The court did not give a proper assessment to the fact that S. left the apartment due to the divorce in 1992, explaining that he was forced to do this in order to avoid scandals. From the plaintiff’s explanations, it is clear that after S. left the apartment, the front door was replaced with a new lock, the keys to which the ex-husband did not have, which also needs to be checked[9].
Often, claims indicate that the defendant has started another family and lives in a different place of residence, which indicates that he has left for another permanent place of residence. Therefore, the decision of the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court deserves attention, which, canceling the court decision, pointed out the need to find out the composition of the new family in which the defendant M. lived since 1997, since according to the legislation in force at that time (Articles 53-54 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR ) the right to living space was given to citizens moved in by the tenant with the written consent of all adult members of his family, if these citizens were or were recognized as members of the tenant’s family and if upon moving in there was no other agreement on the procedure for using another residential premises. Therefore, in order to properly resolve the dispute, it was necessary to establish whether M. is a member of the family of the tenant of the apartment indicated by the plaintiff[10].
In Part 4 of Art. 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation provides for termination of a social tenancy agreement for residential premises at the request of the landlord only in court in the event of:
a) failure by the tenant to pay for housing and (or) utilities for more than six months. This paragraph duplicates the content of Art. 155 Fundamentals, which, in addition to eviction, provided for the amount of penalties;
b) destruction or damage to residential premises by the tenant or other citizens for whose actions he is responsible (for example, subtenants, temporary residents);
c) systematic violation of the rights and legitimate interests of neighbors, which makes it impossible to live together in the same residential premises;
d) use of residential premises for other purposes. “In this regard, it is not clear what kind of misuse of housing we are talking about, if currently residential premises can be used not only for the residence of citizens, but also for carrying out professional or individual entrepreneurial activities,” A.A. is perplexed. Titov[11].
In paragraph 5 of Art. 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation states that a social tenancy agreement for residential premises is terminated due to the loss (destruction) of the latter. In general, you can lose the right to use residential premises, but it is hardly possible to lose residential premises.
In addition, the use of two different concepts – “destruction” and “loss of housing” – as synonyms can hardly be considered a successful finding by the legislator. If we are talking about the physical destruction of an object, then this must be clearly reflected in the law.
The list specified in Art. 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, is formulated as exhaustive.
The Housing Code of the Russian Federation does not regulate the issue of loss of the right to use residential premises. It is unlikely that it would be correct to terminate the social tenancy agreement provided for in Art. 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, and to evict all users of housing without providing residential premises (Article 91 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation), if one of the total number of users is guilty of damaging the premises or violating the interests of neighbors. We are talking about recognizing in court the guilty person as having lost the right to use the residential premises and evicting him while preserving the validity of the contract for all users of the residential premises. Moreover, Art. 91 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation provides for the eviction of persons deprived of parental rights without determining the grounds for termination of housing legal relations. This case should be regarded as a loss of the right to use housing.
Due to the fact that the order has ceased to serve as the basis for moving into a residential premises represented in the housing stock for social use, the existing judicial practice on declaring the order invalid and eviction of persons who moved into a specific residential premises according to it is not subject to application under the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. The Housing Code of the Russian Federation does not provide grounds for termination of a social tenancy agreement in case of violation of the priority order for the provision of residential premises from the social use fund.
Consequently, citizens who are registered as needing improved housing conditions and who believe that residential premises should be provided to them cannot go to court with such claims, since they do not have a subjective civil right to the residential premises specified in the rental agreement. The Housing Code does not establish the circle of persons who can bring a claim in such cases.
The eviction of citizens to whom housing was provided on the basis of a social tenancy agreement is carried out according to the rules of Art. 84-85 Housing Code. Eviction from these residential premises is permitted only through judicial procedure. The Housing Code of the RSFSR provided for two types of eviction: with the provision of other living quarters and without the provision. The new Housing Code of the Russian Federation clarifies: eviction can be carried out with the provision of another residential premises or without the provision of housing. In cases where a decision is made to provide citizens with other comfortable premises, the court is obliged to check whether the provided premises meet the level of improvement in relation to the conditions of a given locality; At the same time, the livability is taken into account only in houses of the state and municipal housing stock. The premises provided must be located within the boundaries of this locality in a permanent building.
The question arises: is it possible to say that the destruction of a residential premises also gives the tenant the right to claim the application of Art. 85 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and, accordingly, demand the provision of other housing? The interpretation of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation gives a negative answer.
If the tenant occupied a separate apartment, he must be provided with a separate apartment. Critics of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation say: if “equivalent living space” is provided, then a family of four will never be able to move out of a one-room apartment, because will receive the area of this particular apartment. Yesterday they did not have to pay extra for additional meters, they simply received three rooms from the city according to the social norm. Now they can be forced to pay extra? P.V. Krasheninnikov replies: “Yes, there is still some kind of contradiction here. When I said that when relocating a house undergoing demolition, the previous norms apply, I meant Art. 86 LCD “Procedure for the provision of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement in connection with the demolition of a house.” This article states that citizens evicted from a house subject to demolition “are provided with other comfortable living quarters under social tenancy agreements. In this case, naturally, social norms for the provision of living space adopted in a particular city or village must apply.” The same procedure is provided for in Art. 87-88 for cases when the house is declared unfit for habitation or is undergoing major repairs. But Art. 89, indeed, contradicts the previous three. It should, of course, indicate: “based on the number of family members” [12].
Housing Code of the Russian Federation in Art. 85 provided for the provision of comfortable residential premises in the event that:
1) the house in which the living space is located is subject to demolition. According to clause 7 of the Regulations on recognizing a premises as a residential premises, a residential premises as unfit for habitation and an apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition, suitable (unsuitable) for citizens to live in, as well as an apartment building as unfit for habitation and subject to demolition, recognition is carried out by an interdepartmental commission. The owner of the residential premises or a person authorized by him is invited to work in the commission with the right to vote;
2) residential premises are subject to transfer to non-residential premises;
3) the residential premises are declared unfit for habitation. The Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 28, 2006 No. 47 “On approval of the Regulations on the recognition of premises as residential premises, residential premises unfit for habitation and an apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition” [13] stipulates that the grounds for recognizing residential premises as unfit for habitation should be consider their location in dangerous zones of landslides, mudflows, snow avalanches, as well as in areas that are annually inundated by flood waters. Premises located in apartment buildings that have been damaged as a result of explosions, accidents, fires, earthquakes, or uneven soil subsidence will be unsuitable for habitation if restoration work is technically impossible or economically infeasible. In these cases, these apartment buildings are recognized as unsafe and subject to demolition. At the same time, paragraph 2 of Art. 57 of the RF Housing Code provides for the right of citizens whose premises are duly recognized as unfit for habitation and are not subject to repair or reconstruction, to an extraordinary provision of residential premises. We believe that the phrase “cannot be repaired or reconstructed” is redundant, since the housing has been declared unfit for habitation.
S.I. Suslova writes about this: “In relation to a social tenancy agreement, the question arises about the relationship between Art. 57 Housing Code of the Russian Federation with Art. 85 Housing Code of the Russian Federation. It turns out that if a residential premises is recognized as unsuitable on the basis of clause 38 of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 47, then the citizen acquires the right to demand the provision of housing in an extraordinary manner. And if the premises are recognized as unsuitable for other reasons (for example, due to the presence of identified harmful factors in a person’s environment that do not allow him to ensure the safety of life and health of citizens), then the application of the rules on priority provision of housing is unacceptable and the citizen has the right to demand his eviction for based on Art. 85 Housing Code of the Russian Federation. Legal uncertainty in this matter should also be eliminated”[14];
4) as a result of major repairs or reconstruction of the house, the residential premises cannot be preserved or its total area will decrease, as a result of which the tenant and his family members living in it may be recognized as needing residential premises, or it will increase, as a result of which the total area of the occupied premises residential premises per family member will significantly exceed the provision norm.
According to Art. 90 of the Housing Code, the eviction of the tenant and members of his family living with him from the residential premises due to failure to pay for the residential premises and utilities for six months without good reason is carried out with the provision of another residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, the size of which corresponds to the size of the residential premises premises established for moving citizens into a dormitory (i.e., at least 6 sq. m per person). This premises may not meet the criteria for livability. In our opinion, in any case, such a premises must meet the criteria of a residential premises - be intended for the residence of citizens, meet established sanitary and technical rules and regulations, as well as other legal requirements and be located within a populated area, since a different interpretation would violate the right of a citizen to choose a place of residence.
The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in a review of practice, indicated that “the specific residential premises must be indicated in the statement of claim, otherwise the claim must be left without progress. If such a claim is accepted, then it must be denied.”[15].
Rules on eviction due to failure to pay rent and utilities have received mixed reviews. Thus, in a letter from Rospotrebnadzor dated 02/08/2006 on improving the efficiency of work related to ensuring the protection of consumer rights in the field of housing construction and in the provision of housing and communal services, it is indicated that the provisions of the Housing Code on eviction from residential premises for non-payment of fees do not contribute to protecting the interests of citizens.
The disadvantages of Art. 90 of the RF Housing Code can be attributed to the fact that it does not disclose the concept of “good reasons”. The reason for non-payment does not affect the possibility of termination of the contract. At the same time, according to Art. 83 of the Housing Code, termination of a contract due to non-payment of payments is possible only in the absence of valid reasons from the tenant, which include long delays in the payment of wages and pensions, unemployment, and difficult financial situation within the family. If we talk about eviction due to impossibility of residence, then the literal interpretation of Art. 83 of the Housing Code leads to the conclusion that this applies to neighbors living in the same residential premises, and not in an apartment building, which is not a residential premises. Interested parties who may demand the eviction of the tenant in case of violation of their rights, interests or mismanagement are not only the landlord, but also the tenant’s neighbors, members of his family living with him. However, these interested parties can demand the eviction of the tenant, but not the termination of the contract.
Citizens may be evicted from residential premises provided to them under a social tenancy agreement without the provision of other residential premises in the cases provided for in Art. 91 LCD. This is possible if the tenant and (or) other citizens for whom he is responsible use the residential premises for other purposes, systematically violate the rights and legitimate interests of neighbors, or mishandle the residential premises, allowing them to be destroyed. Citizens for whose actions the employer is responsible under a social tenancy agreement include: members of the employer's family (Part 2 of Article 69 of the RF Housing Code); subtenant and citizens moving in with him (part 3 of article 76 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation); temporary residents (Part 3 of Article 80 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation). Unfortunately, housing legislation does not cover the concepts of “destruction” and “damage to residential premises.” These actions in themselves do not constitute grounds for the landlord to go to court with an appropriate demand for eviction. The landlord is first obliged to warn the tenant and his family members living with him about the need to eliminate the violations. If these violations entail the destruction of living quarters or sanitary equipment, then the landlord also has the right (but is not obligated) to assign the tenant and his family members a reasonable period to eliminate these violations. If, after the warning, these persons do not eliminate the violations listed in Art. 91 of the Housing Code, the landlord has the right to go to court with a demand to evict these persons.
“Thus, on the basis of a residential lease agreement, a certain “real encumbrance” arises for the owner of the residential premises (lessor) in the form of a restriction of the real right of use of the tenant and members of his family”[16].
In Art. 91 of the Housing Code provides for the rule that citizens deprived of parental rights may be evicted without the provision of residential premises if the cohabitation of these citizens with children in respect of whom they are deprived of parental rights is recognized by the court as impossible.
[1] Determination of the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court (extract) No. 07-06126 dated March 18, 2004 // Archive of the Samara Regional Court.
[2] SPS “Garant”.
[3] Zorkoltsev, R.D. Decree. op. – P. 171.
[4] Arutunyan, G. Chance for a separate rental agreement / G. Arutunyan // Home lawyer. – 2005. – No. 15. – P. 2-5.
[5] Ruzanova, V.D. Termination of a residential lease agreement / V.D. Ruzanova // Housing law. – 2005. – No. 3. – pp. 14-16.
[6] Novikova, O.B. Decree. op.
[7] Ibid. – P. 72.
[8] Radchenko, S.D. Disputes regarding the recognition of a citizen as having lost the right to use residential premises occupied under a social tenancy agreement / S.D. Radchenko // Housing law. – 2002. – No. 2. – P. 60-67.
[9] Determination of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Samara Regional Court 05-1550 dated April 10, 2006 // Archive of the Samara Regional Court.
[10] Extract from the resolution of the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court No. 0706/73 dated March 1, 2007.
[11] Titov, A.A. Commentary on the new Housing Code of the Russian Federation / A.A. Titov. – M.: Yurayt, 2005. – P. 91.
[12] Nevinnaya, I. Housing for everyone and for everyone? / I. Nevinnaya // Russian newspaper. – 2005. – March 17. – No. 52 (3721).
[13] Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. – No. 6. – St. 702.
[14] Suslova, S.I. On the issue of the relationship between the concept of suitability and loss (destruction) of residential premises / S.I. Suslova // Housing law. – 2007. – No. 5. – pp. 34-37.
[15] Review of cases on termination of a social tenancy agreement due to the tenant’s failure to pay for housing and utilities within six months // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. – 2000. – No. 8. – P. 23.
[16] Konchalova, I.V. Ownership and other property rights of citizens to residential premises: dis. ...cand. legal Sciences / I.V. Konchalov. – M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 2006. – P. 180.
Eviction under a social tenancy agreement
Eviction occurs both with the provision of citizens with another housing, in place of the previous one, and without provision. The housing that is transferred to the citizen after eviction must be located in the same locality where the citizen previously lived, and must meet all legal requirements regarding technical, fire and sanitary conditions. Housing is issued taking into account the area standards established by law for each resident. As a rule, the basis for eviction with the provision of new housing is the recognition of the house as unsafe and unfit for habitation, or the demolition of the house.
The eviction of a tenant without the provision of another tenant occurs due to the fault of the tenant, for example, in the case when utilities are systematically not paid, when by his actions a citizen destroys, destroys the premises, violates the legal rights of other people and refuses to eliminate the violations, despite the warning of the tenant about the need to do so . To evict, you must have a valid court decision.
Author of the article
general information
These persons can enter into a contract for renting an apartment, and this process will not require any intervention from a notary . The contract is usually drawn up in writing, as required by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
The term “hire agreement” is a corresponding, drawn up civil act that has a legal basis. It is signed by two participants - parties, where one is obliged to pay the other a specific previously agreed upon fee in cash or non-cash means in such a form as payment for a service .
Each party automatically, by concluding an act, becomes a subject of civil legal relations .
The object of the contract is a specific housing, office or other real estate.
It can also become other real estate.
In simple words, one of the parties can use someone else’s real estate for a specific amount of time and pay a pre-agreed amount of money for it.
Find out in our article what a tenant must pay for.
