Transfer of Company Shares and Commercial Lease: When Termination is Automatic

Imagine: you are the owner of commercial premises in Somain, in the Nord. You lease them to a company that runs a bar. One day, you learn that the shareholders of that company have transferred all their shares to a third party. The new manager continues to operate the business, but accumulates rent arrears. You serve a demand for payment (an official act requiring payment within a certain period, here one month) invoking the forfeiture clause (the one that provides for automatic termination of the lease in case of non-payment). The tenant does not pay. You bring the matter before the court to have the termination of the lease declared. But can the judge, on his own motion, verify whether the demand was valid? That is the question put to the Court of Cassation in this judgment of 12 June 1996.

This decision, although dating back nearly thirty years, remains an essential reference for all landlords and tenants of commercial leases. It answers a practical question: how far does the judge's role go when a party does not raise a defence? Can the landlord be taken by surprise? Must the tenant be vigilant about his own rights?

The Court of Cassation ruled: the judge is not required to make up for a party's failure. If the tenant does not challenge the validity of the demand, the judge does not have to do it in his place. Simple as it seems, this rule has serious consequences, particularly in the case of a transfer of company shares – a thorny issue that this judgment also addresses indirectly.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

Mr X, owner of commercial premises in Valenciennes, granted a lease (rental contract) of the premises to the company Le Majesty, which operates a business there (commercial activity). A few years later, the shareholders of Le Majesty transfer all their shares (company shares) to a new purchaser. This common operation does not, in principle, transfer the lease itself, since the legal entity remains the same. But the new manager accumulates rent arrears.

Mr X then serves on Le Majesty a demand for payment invoking the forfeiture clause of the lease. This demand gives it one month to pay the rent due, failing which the lease will be terminated ipso jure (automatically). The company does not pay within the time limit. Mr X then brings the matter before the Tribunal de Grande Instance to have the termination of the lease declared and obtain the eviction of the tenant.

Before the Douai Court of Appeal, Le Majesty does not challenge the validity of the demand. It merely argues that the transfer of shares does not constitute a transfer of the lease, so the forfeiture clause cannot be invoked against it. The Court of Appeal rejects this argument and declares the lease terminated. The company appeals to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the Court of Appeal should have verified ex officio whether the demand had given sufficient time to comply with the obligations referred to.

The Reasoning of the Court – Analysed

The Court of Cassation had to answer a procedural question: when seised of a claim for a declaration of termination of a lease, must the judge verify ex officio the validity of the demand for payment? In other words, can he make up for the tenant's negligence in not raising this ground?

The High Court answers in the negative, relying on Article 1134 of the Civil Code (now 1103), which establishes the principle of the binding force of contracts: "Agreements lawfully entered into take the place of law for those who have made them." It holds that "the Court of Appeal, seised of an action for a declaration of termination of the lease, was not required to carry out an investigation, which was not requested of it, into the fact that the demand invoking the forfeiture clause had given the tenant a period to comply with the obligations under the lease referred to in that act."

This reasoning is consistent with the adversarial principle (it is for the parties to present their arguments, not for the judge to invent them). The Court of Cassation thus recalls that the judge is not obliged to make up for a party's failure in the administration of evidence or in the formulation of its defences. If the tenant does not challenge the validity of the demand, the judge can validly declare the termination of the lease without verifying this point.

This judgment confirms settled case law: the judge is not required to substitute himself for the parties. It is neither a reversal nor an evolution, but a classic application of procedural law. The arguments of Le Majesty, based on an alleged obligation to verify, were dismissed. The Court also rejected the ground based on the transfer of shares, holding that the Court of Appeal had discretionarily considered that this transfer amounted to a transfer of the lease, justifying the application of the forfeiture clause.

What This Changes for You – Practically

For the landlord: you can rest easy. If you comply with the formalities of the demand (one-month period, mention of the forfeiture clause), and the tenant does not challenge its validity, the judge will declare the termination without further ado. In Valenciennes, for example, a landlord thus obtained the eviction of a tenant who had not paid €12,000 in rent within three months. Time and money saved.

For the tenant: be vigilant! If you receive a demand for payment, do not neglect to verify its regularity. A period that is too short, a poorly referenced clause, a lack of precise breakdown can be grounds for nullity. But it is up to you to raise them before the judge, otherwise you lose that ground. Do not count on the court to do it for you.

For the purchaser of shares: be aware that the transfer of all the shares of a company holding a commercial lease may be recharacterised as a transfer of the lease by the judges, especially if it is accompanied by an effective change of control of the company. You are then bound by the terms of the lease, including the forfeiture clause. Before buying, have the absence of arrears and the terms of the contract checked.

For the property professional: remind your tenant clients that they must challenge any irregular demand as soon as possible. One month is short. And inform your landlord clients that a transfer of shares can be a strategy to circumvent an approval clause, but it exposes them to recharacterisation, as in this case.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check the regularity of the demand as soon as you receive it. Check the period (at least one month), the mention of the forfeiture clause, the precise breakdown of the sums due. If any element is missing, challenge it by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt within fifteen days.
• In case of a transfer of shares, carry out a due diligence of the lease. Ask the seller for a certificate from the landlord confirming the absence of debt and the regularity of rent payments. Do not hesitate to contact the landlord directly.
• For the landlord: include a strict approval clause. Require that any transfer of shares resulting in a change of control be subject to your prior consent. This allows you to keep control over the quality of your tenant.
• Keep all payment records and correspondence. In the event of a dispute, you will need to prove the existence of the arrears and the regularity of the procedure. A bank history and registered letters will be evidence.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1996 judgment is part of a line of decisions recalling the adversarial principle in matters of forfeiture clauses. For example, a judgment of the Court of Cassation of 10 July 1991 (No. 89-20.701) had already held that "the judge is not required to make up for a party's failure in the administration of evidence." More recently, a judgment of 14 November 2019 (No. 18-19.256) extended this principle to the landlord's obligation to inform the tenant of the revised rent: if the tenant does not challenge the amount, the judge is not required to verify ex officio the merits of the revision.

The trend is therefore constant: the civil judge remains neutral and does not substitute himself for the parties. This means that tenants must be particularly proactive in defending their rights. Conversely, landlords can secure their procedures by ensuring the formal regularity of demands, without fear of an ex officio control by the judge on points not raised. For the future, this case law could be called into question if the legislator strengthened the role of the judge in protecting tenants, but nothing indicates such an evolution at present.

Summary and Next Steps

FAQ:

• Must the judge verify the validity of the demand if the tenant does not challenge it? No, the Court of Cassation has ruled: the judge is not required to make up for the tenant's failure.
• Does the transfer of all company shares amount to a transfer of the lease? Yes, if it results in an effective change of control, the judges may recharacterise it as a transfer of the lease.
• What should I do if I receive a demand for payment? Immediately check its regularity (period, clause, breakdown) and challenge it in writing if necessary, within the one-month period.
• Can I be evicted if I do not pay after a regular demand? Yes, if you do not challenge the demand and the landlord brings the matter before the judge, the termination will be declared and eviction ordered.
• What are the risks for the purchaser of shares? He may be liable for the debts under the lease and for the application of the forfeiture clause, even if he did not sign the lease.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) may save you months of litigation — and often much more. Book an appointment →