The Provincial Court of Barcelona has confirmed the eviction of a tenant who lived in a social rental home for which she paid 177.78 euros, considering that the contract had ended and that the owner was not obliged to renew it or offer a new social rental. Justice concludes that, once the contract has been terminated and correctly communicated the desire not to renew itthe landlord can recover the home even if the tenant continues in a situation of economic vulnerability.
According to the ruling of March 17, 2026, the rental contract was signed in February 2018 with an initial duration of three years and a monthly rent of 177.78 euros. Subsequently, the home passed into the hands of a company linked to BBVA, which took over as landlord. In September 2020, the company notified via burofax that it did not want to renew the contract and set its end for February 2021.
Gonzalo Bernardos, economist, on rents: “A vulnerable tenant is now considered anyone who earns less than 1,600 euros”
Confirmed by law: selling the apartment does not give the right to kick out the tenant, even if the owner changes, until the contract ends
Despite this, the tenant decided to remain in the home and claimed that she had the right to continue in the property because she was in a vulnerable situation. Furthermore, he defended that he had requested an extension of the contract in accordance with article 10 of Catalan Law 24/2015 and that the owner was obliged to offer him a new social rental before eviction. However, both the Court of First Instance and later the Provincial Court rejected his arguments and confirmed that the contract was terminated.
Vulnerability does not require renewing the social rent if the contract has already ended
The Provincial Court of Barcelona confirmed the ruling, considering that the contract had validly terminated due to the expiration of the agreed period. And the procedure was based on article 250.1.1º of the Civil Procedure Law (LEC), which allows recovery of possession of a rented home when the contract ends.
The court recalled that housing leases are regulated by the Urban Leases Law (LAU) and that, once the expiration date has been reached, the owner can recover the home if he correctly communicates his desire not to renew the contract. In this case, the rental contract was signed in February 2018 with an initial duration of three years and a monthly rent of 177.78 euros. On that date, the Urban Leases Law (LAU) established a mandatory minimum duration of three years for this type of contract, so the Court considered the burofax sent by the owner company to be valid, understanding that it fulfilled the function of clearly notifying the termination of the lease.
The ruling also clarified that the tenant’s economically vulnerable situation did not automatically prevent eviction. According to the magistrates, this circumstance could only justify, in certain cases, a temporary suspension of the launch in accordance with Royal Decree-Law 11/2020, but not maintain the rental contract indefinitely.
Furthermore, the Court specified that the legislation does not recognize an automatic right to renew expired social contracts for the simple fact of maintaining the economic vulnerability of the tenant.
In relation to social rental, the court recalled that article 10 of Catalan Law 24/2015, which obliged certain owners to offer a new social rental, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court Ruling 16/2021. Subsequently, a new regulation approved by the Parliament of Catalonia in 2022 was also annulled by the Constitutional Court Ruling 120/2024.
The Court stressed that a norm declared unconstitutional “cannot display any effect”, even if it was formally in force when the events occurred. Therefore, it concluded that the tenant could not demand the renewal or the signing of a new social contract based on a provision annulled by the Constitution.
Likewise, the ruling clarified that those regulations did not really regulate an automatic extension of the existing contract, but rather the possible formalization of a new, different contract, something that never occurred in this case.
For all these reasons, the Provincial Court confirmed the eviction and the obligation to leave the home. However, the resolution was not final and an appeal could be filed against it before the Supreme Court.