The fact that the rental value of the part of the premises intended for residential use has increased faster than that of the commercial premises cannot, in itself, justify a departure from the capping rules

Application pratique:

The Cour de cassation’s 1977 ruling directly blocks your argument: differential rental value growth between commercial and residential parts cannot justify bypassing the statutory cap. You must calculate the permitted increase strictly in line with the commercial rent index (ILC) and any applicable legal ceilings. Attempting a higher increase risks the tenant successfully challenging it in court, potentially forcing you to reimburse excess rent plus legal costs. Consult a notaire or property solicitor to compute the lawful new rent precisely before serving notice.

Application pratique:

The Cass. 75-15.072 decision precisely addresses your situation: a landlord cannot use faster residential rent growth to circumvent the cap on commercial rent increases. You are entitled to demand that the rent be fixed according to the legal ceiling, typically the variation in the Indice des Loyers Commerciaux (ILC). Write a formal refusal citing this precedent and propose a capped figure based on the index. If the landlord persists, bring the matter before the juge des loyers commerciaux; your position is strongly supported.

Application pratique:

Under the principle reaffirmed by Cass. 1977, such a disparity in rental value trends does not permit evading the commercial rent cap. Your projected 40% increase is almost certainly unlawful—only the capped indexation rate (likely around 3–5% per year cumulated) would apply. Before finalising the purchase, recompute your yield using only the legal maximum increase, and consider whether the investment still meets your goals. Instruct your solicitor to include a due diligence clause verifying the exact cap applicable at renewal, and perhaps renegotiate the price downward.