The Provincial Court of Granada has corrected a sentence that sentenced a tenant to pay painting costs and cleaning of the home after ending the rental contract. Consider that these actions cannot be considered small repairs attributable to the tenant, unless there is an express clause in the contract that establishes this.
According to the ruling of September 19, 2025, the landlady sued the tenants demanding 2,275 euros for defects detected at the end of the contract. These included the expenses derived from painting the walls of the house, its general cleaning and other minor repairs.
The Court of First Instance no.
The tenant cannot be required to return the home as if he had not lived in it
The Provincial Court of Granada, however, upheld part of the tenant’s appeal, reducing the amount of the sentence by excluding the costs of painting and cleaning. These items could not be considered a responsibility of the tenant, since they are actions that are linked to the general maintenance of the home, and are the responsibility of the landlord.
The court noted that article 21.4 of the Urban Leasing Law establishes that the landlord must assume “all necessary repairs to keep the home in habitable conditions,” unless the deterioration is attributable to the tenant. In this case, it was not proven that the damages were a consequence of abnormal or negligent use.
In addition, he recalled that the tenant cannot be required to “return the house painted and in a state of professional cleaning” if there is no express agreement in the contract that imposes it. He also specified that the landlord cannot expect the home to be handed over “as if he had not lived in it,” as this would mean imposing obligations inherent to the owner.
Consequently, the Court partially revoked the first instance ruling, eliminating the payment of the expenses corresponding to painting and cleaning. However, the sentence was not final and an appeal could be filed against it before the Supreme Court.