Fraudulent conduct by the operator in drafting the lease: eviction indemnity set aside
Written by, Séphora Amsellem on October 15, 2025
In 2025, the Civil Court issued a noteworthy decision for private landlords dealing with operators of tourist residences. A non-professional owner had leased an apartment within a tourist residence to an operating company. Upon expiry of the commercial lease, the landlord refused renewal, which would in principle entitle the tenant to an eviction indemnity. The operator accordingly claimed nearly €10,000.
The court dismissed this claim. It reiterated that contractual good faith, a principle of public policy, governs both the formation and performance of contracts. In this case, the lease contained a clause capping the eviction indemnity, which is deemed unwritten as contrary to public policy. The tenant company, an experienced professional and the drafter of the standard-form agreement, was fully aware that this clause was unlawful and had even acknowledged this in writing prior to the dispute.
The court held that the company had deliberately inserted a clause devoid of legal effect in order to make the lease more attractive to an unsophisticated landlord, while the actual indemnity could have amounted to several years’ rent. This misleading presentation constituted fraudulent conduct, incompatible with contractual good faith, and justified depriving the tenant of any eviction indemnity.
Accordingly, this first-instance decision serves as a reminder that private landlords are not without remedies when facing professional operators well-versed in commercial leases for tourist residences. Where a tenant, by virtue of its expertise, has full command of the applicable legal framework yet nonetheless inserts an unlawful clause to influence the landlord’s consent, this amounts to a clear breach of contractual good faith. In such circumstances, the court may legitimately set aside any entitlement to an eviction indemnity, even though the refusal to renew the lease would ordinarily give rise to such a right.
(Judicial Court of Gap, Civil Procedure Chamber 1, 15 September 2025, No. 19/00903)