Justice allows a tenant to pay a third less rent because her landlady did not fix the humidity in the house

The Provincial Court of Barcelona has considered that a tenant could pay a third less rent because the owner of her home did not fix the damp problems in the property. Although they make it clear that you cannot stop paying the rent because you continued living there, you can reduce rent because the landlady had failed to comply with her obligations to maintain the home in proper condition.

The woman had been living there with her family since November 2017 and, according to the ruling of September 30, 2026, she paid a rent of 650 euros per month, which was later updated to 666.81 euros. Despite paying the rent, the house had problems with dampness, fungus on the walls and lack of ventilation in the bathroom, so the tenant demanded that the owner company fix them, even sending her a burofax, but the repairs were not made.

Given this situation, the woman stopped paying rent since May 2020, although she continued living in the property. For this reason, the company that owns it decided to sue it and demand 31,340.07 euros for unpaid monthly payments until March 2024, in addition to subsequent rents. Although the Court of First Instance number 31 of Barcelona initially ruled in favor of the landlady, the tenant appealed and the Provincial Court partially revoked the sentence.

The owner is obliged to repair the humidity in the home

In the ruling, the Court recalled that article 21 of the Urban Leases Law (LAU) establishes certain obligations that the landlord and tenant must comply with. He clarified that, while the owner is obliged to make the necessary repairs to keep the home in habitable conditions, the tenant is only responsible for small repairs resulting from wear and tear due to ordinary use.

In this case, the technical reports confirmed that there was a significant presence of fungi on one of the walls, humidity in the living room and in a bedroom, as well as ventilation problems in the bathroom. In fact, a technical architect who worked for the City Council concluded that the house did not meet the minimum habitability conditions required for properties of its age.

However, the Court considered that these problems did not justify the tenant completely stopping paying the rent, since both she and her family had continued living in the property. Although it was recognized that, given the situation of the housing market, it was understandable that the woman could not find another home and had to remain there despite the deficiencies.

However, the court also noted that the owner had breached her conservation obligation, despite the fact that the woman had demanded that she fix the dampness before stopping paying. Therefore, applying articles 1101 and 1124 of the Civil Code and the doctrine known as exceptio non rite adimpleti contractuswhich allows reducing what one of the parties must pay when the other does not comply correctly, a reduction in rent was justified.

The court reduced the rent by a third until the humidity was repaired

The ruling makes it clear that there is no rule that establishes how much the rent can be reduced if the landlord does not comply with the obligation to maintain the home in habitable conditions. In this case he made it clear that it is up to the judges to determine a reasonable amount taking into account the circumstances.

Taking into account the conditions of the house, the Court decided to establish the debt that the owner claimed from the tenant at one third, going from 31,340.07 euros to 20,893.38 euros, which represented a reduction of 10,446.69 euros.

In addition, this deduction should also be applied to the rents paid from that moment on until the habitability problems of the house were resolved.

However, one of the magistrates cast a dissenting vote when considering that the correct solution was not to reduce the rent, but rather to force the woman to pay the outstanding rent and grant her compensation of 6,000 euros for the damages suffered, as she had claimed.

Finally, the sentence (SAP B 6790/2026) established the reduction of rent, but there was an appeal against it.