The Provincial Court of Malaga has confirmed the eviction of a tenant who continued living in a inherited housing despite the fact that the rental contract had already expired and several of the owners had formally informed him that they did not want to renew it. Justice concludes that, in the case of a hereditary community, it is enough for some of the co-owners to act for the common benefit to recover the property, without the need for express authorization from the rest of the heirs.
According to the ruling of January 28, 2026, the lease contract was initially signed in November 2013 and was subsequently extended. After more than seven years of renting, several heirs sent the tenant a burofax in September 2021 informing him of their desire not to continue extending the contract. This notification according to the LAU, must be done at least 4 months in advance.
Confirmed by law: these tenants can stay in the rental apartment for at least 7 years even if they sign a contract for less time
A 91-year-old woman recovers her house after 4 years of non-payments: the tenants charged more for the IMV than she did for her pension
Despite this, the tenant remained in the home and opposed the eviction, alleging that the plaintiffs could not act alone because the property belonged to several heirs. However, both the Court of First Instance and the Provincial Court rejected all of these arguments and confirmed the obligation to vacate the property.
The Court endorses that several heirs can recover the home without authorization from the rest
The Provincial Court of Malaga based its decision on the doctrine of the Supreme Court on communities of property and on articles 394 and 398 of the Civil Code, which regulate the powers of co-owners over common property.
In this sense, the court recalled that judicially demanding the recovery of a rented home constitutes an “act of administration” and not an act of disposal. This implies that any community member can take legal action for the benefit of the entire hereditary community even if all the owners do not act jointly, as long as there is no express opposition from the rest.
The ruling highlighted that the plaintiffs provided the inheritance adjudication deed that accredited their status as co-owners and that the tenant was unable to demonstrate that any of the other heirs were against the eviction.
Furthermore, the Court concluded that the document that the tenant signed at the time, and which said it was a new contract, was actually an extension, since the document itself made express reference to the “extension of the lease contract.”
According to the ruling, article 1281 of the Civil Code requires contracts to be interpreted according to the literal meaning of their clauses when they are clear and leave no doubt about the will of the parties.
On the other hand, it also confirmed that the burofax sent by the heirs correctly complied with the advance notice required in articles 9 and 10 of the Urban Leases Law (LAU), which regulate the duration of rental contracts and their mandatory extensions.
The ruling recalled that, once the legal period and successive extensions have elapsed, the owner can recover the home if he communicates his desire not to renew the contract sufficiently in advance. Furthermore, he clarified that the law does not require any special form to carry out this notification, it is enough for it to be proven that the tenant knew of the intention to terminate the rent.
Regarding the alleged situation of vulnerability, although this circumstance can activate certain social protection measures, it does not prevent the termination of a rental contract that has already legally ended.
For all these reasons, the Provincial Court of Malaga confirmed the eviction, although the sentence was not final and could still be appealed to the Supreme Court.