The Provincial Court of Ávila has ruled in favor of a City Council and has endorsed the eviction of a tenant who had been living in municipal housing for more than 20 years, paying a rent of only 60 euros per month. The court concludes that the council could recover the property because the contract had exhausted all its legal extensions and the tenant continued to occupy the home in a situation of tacit renewal (situation in which the contract continues to be automatically renewed because the tenant continues in the home and the owner allows it).
According to the ruling of March 3, 2026, the woman had been living in the property since October 2002, when her husband signed the rental contract. During that time he lived in the house paying the rent, until the time when the City Council communicated on several occasions its intention not to continue renewing the rent (a pI re-notify that currently the urban lease law sets it at 4 months) and demanded the return of the home.
A family recovers their house after 6 years of fighting despite the fact that the tenants were vulnerable: Justice annuls it when it is discovered that they played golf and re-rented the house as a tourist apartment
“It’s not because of the money that I have to pay, it’s that I can’t”: a landlord claims 114,000 euros in late payments to tenants
The tenant opposed the eviction, alleging defects in the procedure and a possible situation of economic and social vulnerability. At first, the Court of First Instance of Piedrahíta rejected the City Council’s claim, considering that it had not correctly given the necessary notice to avoid the automatic renewal of the contract.
The Court endorses the eviction because the contract had exceeded all its legal extensions
The Provincial Court of Ávila, on the contrary, did endorse the eviction of the tenant, justifying that articles 1566 and 1581 of the Civil Code, which regulate the “tacit renewal” of rental contracts, indicate that once the legal extensions have been exhausted, the contract can continue to be automatically renewed for monthly periods if the owner allows it, but it can also be extinguished if the owner correctly communicates his desire to recover the home.
In this case, the court considered it proven that the City Council made the necessary requirements to prevent the contract from continuing to be automatically extended. Specifically, it sent communications to the tenant in September 2022 and February 2023 expressing its intention to recover the property.
The ruling highlighted that the original contract was signed in October 2002 and that since September 2010 the rental relationship was in a situation of tacit monthly renewal when the rent was paid month by month. That is to say, the rent had far exceeded all the extensions provided for by law.
For this reason, the Court concluded that the City Council had the right to recover the home without needing to justify any additional cause, it being enough to communicate within the deadline its desire not to continue renewing the contract.
Regarding the vulnerability alleged by the tenant, the ruling indicates that Social Services could not issue a conclusive report because it was impossible to contact her “after successive attempts.” Furthermore, she was not listed as a user of social services nor had she requested prior aid or benefits.
For all these reasons, the Court declared the rental contract terminated and sentenced the tenant to leave the home within a period of two months. However, the sentence was not final and an appeal could be filed against it before the Supreme Court.