Dmitry Uryakin assessed for Pravo.ru the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the issue of whether the lease return act is the only confirmation of lease termination

In mid-2017, the tenant notified the landlord of the termination of the agreement and vacated the building at the beginning of the following month, and two years later received a return notice – about the rent arrears for a year and a half in the amount of RUB 12.3 mn. The first instance stated that the lease return act had not been drawn up for reasons depending on the landlord, denying the latter the recovery of rent. The appellate and cassation instances considered that the absence of such act indicated that it remained in the tenant’s use and the tenant should pay for such use of the property. The Supreme Court pointed out that, as a general rule, when terminating a lease agreement, the parties must execute a document confirming the return of the leased property. But if the tenant has stopped using the property, including by vacating it, and the landlord refuses to accept it, the landlord has no right to demand payment of rent.

Dmitry Uryakin, Senior Associate, Head of the General Business practice at Maxima Legal, told the Pravo.ru legal portal that such situations are quite common in practice. According to the expert, with the adoption of the definition by the Supreme Court they should become less. Courts have already paid attention to this definition and use it in their judgements. Thus, in case No. A42-8775/2023, the lessee in appeal confirmed the release of the property by circumstantial evidence.

To read the full article (in Russian) please visit Pravo.ru website >>>