The Provincial Court of Gipuzkoa has confirmed the eviction of a tenant due to her antisocial behavior towards neighbors. The court has determined that the eviction It was the only solution to a history of incidents that included serious threats, constant noise and a complete lack of hygiene. The ruling includes episodes of extreme tension within the community of neighbors, such as when the tenant made “threats with a knife”, “hit the walls” or demanded money from other residents with phrases such as “either you give me 30 ‘turkeys’ or I will fuck you.”
According to the ruling handed down on July 11, the homeowner He sued his tenant after an accumulation of complaints from neighbors, who described situations of real panic both in the common areas and in their own homes. Testimonies were collected about how the defendant “launched a dangerous dog against the little boy’s neighbor, ordering the dog to attack,” as well as constant intimidation in which “around 4 or 5 in the morning she passed through the community hallways shouting.” Furthermore, coexistence was disrupted by repeated thefts, since the tenant used to “jump onto the adjacent balconies” to steal objects.
The Court of First Instance number 2 of Donostia-San Sebastián upheld the claim and declared the termination of the rental contract considering that the evidence was overwhelming. He stressed that the eviction was a necessary measure after verifying that coexistence in the building had become impossible and that witness and police evidence confirmed an environment of “dirt and unhealthiness” and constant danger that justified the eviction.
The eviction is confirmed to protect the neighbors
The Provincial Court of Gipuzkoa validated this decision by considering that the tenant repeatedly incurred the causes of resolution provided for in the Urban Leases Law (LAU). According to article 27.2.e) of the LAU, the landlord can terminate the contract when annoying, unhealthy, dangerous or illegal activities are carried out in the home. The court understood that parties, shouting at dawn and the use of a dog to intimidate fully fit into this case, also violating clauses 9 and 10 of the contract relating to good neighborliness.
Beyond the inconvenience, the ruling considered proven a highly dangerous component that violated the principles of article 1,124 of the Civil Code. He indicated that there was a serious breach of contract, citing death threats and coercion that led to a judicial protection order in favor of one of the neighbors.
It was also found that the tenant was carrying out illegal activities, after objects stolen from other neighbors and a plantation of marijuana plants were found in the home. Added to this was the deplorable state of hygiene detected in the property, contrary to the contractual obligation to maintain the home in adequate conditions, included in clause 11 of the contract.
Finally, although it was recognized that the tenant suffered from mental illness and substance use disorders, the court concluded that this did not nullify the objective seriousness of the events nor force the neighbors to endure a continued situation of insecurity. For all these reasons, the eviction was confirmed to protect the rights of the community of neighbors. However, an appeal could be filed against this ruling before the Supreme Court.