Urban leases

An owner rented a small housing and an adjacent land . Over time, the owner sued to have the lease contract terminated (to be "broken") for two reasons; first, because the tenant had placed a prefabricated removable house without written authorization; and second, because a third person (the tenant's partner) was living in the housing, which the owner considered not allowed.

In the first instance, the court dismissed the lawsuit, understood that what was installed was a removable prefabricated house placed on the land, and that it had not been proven a permanent or essential modification of the rented property that justified terminating the contract. It was also taken into account that the cohabiting third person was the stable partner of the tenant and that this situation was accredited, even with payments made by her.

The owner appealed to the Provincial Court insisting that the installation (supported by concrete pillars and with connections) changed the land significantly and, therefore, should allow for the resolution of the contract. But the Court dismisses the appeal, concluding that, by its nature, the prefabricated house is removable and it has not been proven that what was done constitutes a definitive or essential alteration of the leased property. Furthermore, it rejects the introduction of new allegations on appeal that were not properly raised before. For all these reasons, the contract is maintained.