Tuesday 06 April 2021
Books – Mahmoud Saeed:
The Supreme Constitutional Court, headed by Counselor Saeed Marei, ruled in last Saturday’s session that the lawsuit calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 29 of Law No. 49 of 1977, which included “the continuation of the lease contract other than the persons mentioned exclusively in the first paragraph of that article.”
Case No. 126 of the Constitutional Year 39 was filed by Gamal Muhammad Jaafar, in which the Chairman and Managing Director of Misr Auto Trade and another are litigating.
Article 29 states that, “Without prejudice to the provisions of Article (8) of this law, the housing lease contract shall not terminate with the death of the tenant or his abandonment of the property if his wife or children, or any of his parents who were staying with him until death or abandonment, remain in it. These are relatives of the tenant by lineage or by marriage to the third degree. The continuation of the lease contract requires that they reside in the dwelling for a period of at least one year prior to the death of the tenant or leaving the eye or the period of his occupation of the dwelling, whichever is closer. With the death of the tenant or his abandonment of the property and continues for the benefit of his heirs and partners in the use of the property according to the circumstances. In all cases, the lessor is obligated to issue a lease contract for those who have the right to continue occupying the property, and these occupants shall abide by the method of solidarity with all the provisions of the contract.
The previous Constitutional Court did not decide on the merits of the case, but in a previous ruling it confirmed the extension of the lease contract for the benefit of spouses and relatives up to the second degree.
What does the constitutional judiciary say about extending the lease contract to the heirs of the deceased?
1 – Evacuating residential places:
In a ruling issued in 2002, the Supreme Constitutional Court affirmed that the lease contract of the “house” does not end with the death of the original tenant or leaving the property if his wife or children or any of his parents (first-degree relatives) who were staying with him remained there until death or abandonment, provided that they abide by With all the provisions of the contract, and thus the contract is extended to it and not the original leaseholder, provided that the leased property returns to its original owner with the death of the last of them or abandonment, which means that the extension of the contract is for one time only.
The ruling means that in the event of the death of the original tenant or leaving the rented place for housing, the lease contract is extended to the first-degree relatives (father, mother, children and wife) for one time only (that is, it does not extend to their children).
2 – Evacuating commercial places (stores):
In a previous ruling, the Constitutional Court ruled the constitutionality of Article 1 of Law No. 6 of 1997 amending the second paragraph of Article (29) of Law 49 of 1977 regarding the rent of non-residential places (shops).
The first article of the contested law stipulated that “if the property is leased to practice a commercial, industrial, professional or craft activity, the right does not end with the death of the original tenant according to the contract, and continues for the benefit of spouses and relatives up to the second degree, male and female who are minors and adults, equal to that. That the use be made in person or through a representative on their behalf. As of the day following the date of publication of the amended law, the contract shall not continue with the death of one of the holders of the right to remain in the eye except for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the heirs of the original tenant only for one time.
The ruling results in the non-termination of the contract with the death of the original tenant, but rather extends to the first and second degree relatives, and the contract ends with the death of the last beneficiaries of them and for one time only.
3 – Evacuation of legal places (companies – clubs – hospitals – banks – embassies):
The Constitutional Court annulled the first paragraph of Article (18) of Law No. 136 of 1981 was issued in the matter of some provisions relating to the leasing and sale of places and the regulation of the relationship between the lessor and the lessee. In the contract, to include lease contracts for places rented to legal persons for use in a non-residential purpose.
The ruling means that the court nullified “the landlord’s prohibition from demanding vacating the place if the agreed contract term expires,” and thus the owner has the right to demand eviction from legal persons upon the end of the contract and prevented its extension.
It is noteworthy that the Constitutional Court relied in all its provisions regulating the relationship of the lessor and the tenant to the application of the text of Article 54 of the Constitution regarding “personal freedom is an inherent right of the individual” and considered that freedom of contract and the will to choose is within it.
She clarified that if the lease contracts extended beyond the agreed period, dot restriction, the right of the lessor – the owner of the property in general – to recover the leased property after the expiry of its lease term has been waived, as long as the right of the lessee is still a personal right limited to the use of the property itself for the purpose. For which it was leased during the period agreed upon in the contract.