Commercial Lease Notice: A Tenant Can Rent Elsewhere Before the Lease Ends, Unless Abusive

You are the owner of commercial premises in Rochefort. You give notice to your tenant to take back the premises or sell them vacant. But your tenant, smelling a rat, signs a new lease elsewhere before the departure date. You believe that the tenant has thereby renounced the right to an eviction indemnity. Wrong. The Court of Cassation, in a decision of 11 February 1971, ruled: the tenant may rent new premises before the notice date without losing the indemnity, provided the tenant does not act solely to thwart the landlord's right of repentance. A decision that sheds light on a common blind spot in commercial leases.

Picture the scene: in Puilboreau, a trader receives a notice from the landlord. Worried about having to close, the trader actively looks for new premises and signs a promise of lease. The landlord, who had given notice to retake the premises, changes his mind and exercises his right of repentance by offering renewal of the lease. Too late, says the tenant, I have already made another commitment. The landlord then refuses to pay the eviction indemnity, arguing that the tenant rushed into re-letting to harm him. Who is right?

The judges' answer is nuanced. The tenant may anticipate re-letting; that is his right. But if the landlord proves that the tenant manoeuvred solely to deprive him of his right of repentance, then the indemnity may be reduced or even suppressed. In this case, the Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal's position: the tenant had simply exercised a promise of sale included in his lease, without abusive intent. The landlord had to pay the eviction indemnity. A lesson for all.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

Mr. Bayard, owner of commercial premises in Rochefort, gives notice to his tenant, Mr. Blondin, a trader. The notice is valid: it terminates the lease on a specified date. But Blondin, anticipating his departure, exercises a promise of sale included in his lease to acquire other premises. He signs the deed before the effective date of the notice. Meanwhile, Bayard changes his mind: he exercises his right of repentance and offers renewal of the lease to Blondin, in accordance with Article 32 of the Decree of 30 September 1953 (which allows the landlord to withdraw the notice by offering renewal, unless the tenant has already made a definitive commitment). Blondin refuses, arguing that he has already bought other premises. Bayard then considers that Blondin no longer has the right to an eviction indemnity, because he voluntarily obstructed the repentance.

The dispute goes to the Court of Appeal, which rules in favour of Blondin. Bayard appeals to the Court of Cassation. Before the Court of Cassation, Bayard argues that Blondin committed an abuse of right by renting new premises before the notice date, with the aim of thwarting his right of repentance. He adds that the premises bought by Blondin had no commercial use, which, according to him, prevents it from being considered a legitimate re-letting. The Court of Cassation dismisses the appeal. It confirms that nothing prohibits the tenant from renting new premises before the notice date, and that Article 32 does not require the new premises to have a commercial use. Abuse of right must be proven, which was not the case here.

The Court's Reasoning — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on two pillars. First, the principle of contractual freedom: the tenant may organise his professional reorientation as he sees fit, as long as he complies with his contractual obligations. No legal provision prohibits him from renting new premises before the effective date of the notice. Second, the concept of abuse of right, derived from Article 1240 of the Civil Code (liability for fault). If the tenant acts solely to harm the landlord or to deprive him of his right of repentance, his behaviour becomes wrongful and may lead to the loss or reduction of the eviction indemnity.

In this case, Bayard did not prove that Blondin acted with malicious intent. Blondin simply exercised a promise of sale provided for in his lease, which is a normal management act. The Court of Appeal had noted that Blondin did not seek to rush the sale to harm Bayard, but to secure his business. The Court of Cassation approves this reasoning. It also clarifies that Article 32 of the 1953 Decree, which governs the right of repentance, does not make the eviction indemnity conditional on the commercial nature of the new premises. It does not matter whether the purchased premises are for residential, office or other use: the evicted tenant may use them for his business or resell them.

This decision is neither a reversal nor a major development, but a confirmation of prior case law. It reminds us that the landlord's right of repentance is not absolute: it cannot be exercised if the tenant has already made a firm and non-abusive commitment. The trial judges have discretionary power to detect abuse. In practice, this means that each situation is examined closely.

What This Changes for You — Practically

For landlords: you may give notice to your tenant, but if you later exercise your right of repentance, you must check whether the tenant has already made a commitment. If he has signed a new lease or bought premises before the notice date, you will have to prove that he did so solely to harm you. Without such proof, you will have to pay the full eviction indemnity, which can represent several years' rent. For example, in Rochefort, a 100 m² premises rented at €600/month may generate an indemnity of €30,000 to €60,000. If you suspect abuse, gather evidence: dates of steps, correspondence, witness statements.

For tenant traders: you may anticipate re-letting without fear of losing your eviction indemnity. But be cautious: if you sign a new lease a few days after receiving notice, without valid reason, the judge may see it as abuse. It is better to justify your steps with economic imperatives (continuation of business, unavailability of other premises, etc.). Keep written records of your searches. Concrete example: a client in Puilboreau received a notice and signed a promise of lease two weeks later, because his supplier threatened to terminate the contract. The judge validated it because the urgency was justified.

For purchasers of commercial premises: if you buy occupied premises, check whether the landlord has exercised his right of repentance. Otherwise, you might inherit an obligation to pay an eviction indemnity. Have a legal audit carried out before signing.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Landlord: insert a clause in the lease specifying the consequences of early re-letting. For example, a clause providing that if the tenant signs a new lease before the notice date, the eviction indemnity is reduced by half, except in cases of force majeure. This clause, if clear and not abusive, may deter opportunistic behaviour.
• Tenant: document your re-letting steps. Keep all exchanges with estate agents, promises of sale, evidence of urgency (loss of customers, contract termination, etc.). In case of dispute, you can demonstrate your good faith.
• Landlord: do not delay exercising your right of repentance. As soon as you change your mind, notify the renewal by bailiff's deed or registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. The longer you wait, the more time the tenant has to commit elsewhere.
• Both parties: favour amicable negotiation. An agreement on the amount of indemnity and the departure date can avoid legal fees and years of proceedings. In Rochefort, mediation costs on average €500 to €1,500, compared to €5,000 to €20,000 for a trial.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

The Court of Cassation has rendered several decisions in the same vein. For example, in a decision of 8 July 1992 (No. 90-21.123), it held that a tenant who signs a new lease after receiving notice does not lose the right to indemnity, even if the new lease begins before the notice date, provided there is no abuse. On the other hand, in a decision of 14 November 2001 (No. 99-19.987), the Court sanctioned a tenant who had bought identical premises the day after the notice, without economic justification, and who refused the repentance. Abuse was established.

The trend of the courts is to protect the tenant, considered the weaker party, but to punish disloyal manoeuvres. Since 1971, the concept of abuse of right has been refined: judges require concrete proof of intent to harm, not mere coincidence of dates. For the future, one can expect courts to continue to require a set of indicators to find abuse: absence of prior search, immediate signing after notice, lack of economic justification, etc.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a tenant sign a new lease before the effective date of the notice? Yes, it is perfectly legal, unless it constitutes an abuse of right. Abuse must be proven by the landlord.
2. What should I do if my tenant signs a new lease just after receiving my notice? Gather evidence of the lack of justification (e.g., he had not started his searches before the notice, the new premises are identical, etc.). Consult a lawyer to assess your chances of proving abuse.
3. Must the new premises have a commercial use for the tenant to retain the right to indemnity? No, the Court of Cassation clarified that Article 32 of the 1953 Decree does not require a commercial use. The tenant may buy or rent residential, office, or other premises.
4. What is the time limit to exercise the right of repentance? The landlord must exercise it before the tenant has made a definitive commitment. It is therefore advisable to do it as soon as possible after the notice, ideally within the month following notification of the notice.
5. What is the amount of the eviction indemnity? It corresponds to the loss suffered by the tenant: value of the business, moving costs, loss of profits, etc. On average, it represents 2 to 3 years' rent, but can be higher.

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