The Provincial Court of Malaga has ordered the eviction of a tenant who had been living in the same house since August 1, 1970, that is, for more than 54 years, after the owner claimed the home so that her daughter could become independent. The court concludes that the landlady could terminate the contract as it was subject to the old Urban Leases Law of 1964, which allows the denial of the forced extension when the landlord needs the home for himself or his descendants.
According to the ruling of February 6, 2026, the owner alleged that she needed to recover the property for her daughter, 25 years old at the time of the resolution, who lived with her, was registered at the family home, worked as an employee and had her own resources to lead an independent life.
He hasn’t paid rent for 7 years: “I live in a truck; I have less and less, but the money I generate is so I don’t have to be a slave in the work system”
A tenant manages to stay in the rented home even though his “temporary” contract had ended: Justice concludes that the landlord was actually hiding a regular rental
The tenant objected, alleging that there was no real and effective need, that the owner had another home and that the eviction would cause her serious harm, since she had been residing in the property for more than half a century. At first, the Court of First Instance number 14 of Malaga rejected the claim, understanding that this need had not been sufficiently proven, but the Provincial Court revoked that decision.
The owner can recover the home if she needs it for her daughter
The Provincial Court recalled that article 62.1 of the Consolidated Text of the Urban Leases Law of 1964 allows the forced extension of the rental contract to be denied when the landlord needs the home for himself or for his ascendants or descendants to occupy it, something that also is possible in current contracts if certain requirements are met. In this case, the cause invoked was the need of the owner’s daughter.
The Chamber explained that the concept of “necessity” does not require an extreme, forced or unavoidable situation, but rather must be understood as something opposite to what is superfluous and superior to mere convenience. That is to say, it is not necessary that the daughter has no other alternative, but there must be a serious, real and legitimate purpose for occupying the home.
In this case, the Court considered it proven that the daughter lived with her mother, was registered with her, worked as an employee and had her own resources. Furthermore, her desire to become independent was already evident both in the request sent to the tenant and in the lawsuit presented by the owner.
The court rejected that the desire of a young person with income to lead an independent life could be classified as a mere whim. On the contrary, he maintained that it constitutes a legitimate aspiration and in accordance with the normal development of personality, which is why it could serve as sufficient cause to recover a home subject to forced extension.
The Court also noted that the tenant did not specifically discuss the daughter’s desire to become independent either in the response to the request, nor in the response to the complaint, nor in the prior hearing. Therefore, he understood that the owner could not be required to provide additional proof regarding a fact that had not really been disputed.
Furthermore, the ruling rejected the idea that the existence of another home belonging to the owner prevents the eviction. The Court explained that the postponement rules of article 64 of the LAU of 1964 operate when the landlord has several apartments rented in the same property, but do not require choosing any other home located in the same city. To this he added that the other property was listed for tourist or hotel use, not residential, so it could not be considered an equivalent alternative for the daughter to live in.
For all these reasons, the court declared the rental contract signed in 1970 terminated and sentenced the tenant to vacate the home and hand it over to the owner, with a warning of eviction if he did not do so.
Despite this, the Court left safe the tenant’s right to complain if the home was ultimately not occupied by the owner’s daughter, or if it was rented to a third party. In that case, you could resort to the actions provided for in article 68 of the Consolidated Text of the LAU of 1964, which allows you to claim the recovery of the home or damages when the alleged cause of need is not met.
However, the sentence was not final and an appeal could be filed against it before the Supreme Court.