The non-payment of the receipt of the Real Estate Tax (IBI) of the house rented by the tenant constitutes a legitimate reason for the exercise of the eviction by the landlord. However, the landlord does not have the obligation in the prior request for payment to warn that the contract will be terminated and that in the event of payment, the eviction action will not be initiated.
Thus, the Supreme Court recognizes it in a ruling, dated April 12, 2021, in which it cites a previous ruling, dated September 22, 2015, which establishes that the communication must contain a request for payment of rent. or assimilated quantity; It must be reliable, that is to say, by means that it allows to prove that it came to the knowledge of the tenant, with sufficient clarity; it must refer to unpaid income; the legally foreseen period must elapse, which has been fluctuating between one and two months, in the successive legal reforms; and that the tenant has not made the amount claimed available to the lessor.
The speaker, Judge Seoane Spiegelberg, confirms that “the legislator does not oblige the landlord to become an advisor to the tenant, but only to require payment.”
The notice must respect the 30-day period and that the communication be reliable
The ruling of the Plenary of the Supreme Court, of January 12, 2007 declared as jurisprudential doctrine that “the non-payment by the tenant of the IBI, in housing leases in force at the time of the entry into force of the new Urban Leasing Law (LAU ) of 1994, must be considered as a cause of resolution included in article 114-1 st of the consolidated text of the LAU of 1964 “, and this doctrine has been reiterated in judgments of September 24 and 26, October 3 and November 7 2008.
The judgments of March 26 and May 28, 2009, establish that the activation of the eviction “is not configured so much as a right as as an opportunity for the tenant to avoid eviction due to lack of payment, because the landlord is not indifferent the moment the stipulated contractual rent is paid “.
On the other hand, in judgments of June 15, 2009 and July 11, 2011, it has also been declared as jurisprudential doctrine, that the non-payment by the lessee of the IBI and the impact of the cost of services and supplies, in leases of existing housing at the time of the entry into force of the new Urban Leasing Law of 1994, must be considered as a cause for resolution included in article 114-1 of the revised text of the LAU of 1964.
And in a judgment of July 20 of 2011, the jurisprudential doctrine is reiterated that “the cost of services and supplies, in existing housing leases at the time of the entry into force of the new LAU, of 1994, must be considered as amounts assimilated to income,and its non-payment is cause for resolution included in article 114-1 of the revised text of the LAU of 1964 “.
In the case in dispute, Judge Seoane Spiegelberg annulled the judgment of the Provincial Court of Madrid, which ruled that there was room to proceed with the eviction, since the request failed to comply with the 30-day period for the tenant to proceed to the pay. In addition, it declares invalid the communications made n. to the daughter of the tenant instead of addressing her.