The landlord is only bound to renew the sublease if he has expressly or tacitly authorised or approved it.

Application pratique:

This case law states that a landlord's silence after being notified of a sublease does not constitute acceptance. To enforce sublease renewal, the tenant must have obtained the landlord's express or tacit authorisation at the time of subletting. The tenant should have secured written consent before subletting. Now, they may negotiate with the landlord, but renewal is unlikely. Always request explicit written permission from the landlord prior to any subletting arrangement.

Application pratique:

The court decision confirms that mere silence is not acceptance. The landlord is not bound to renew the sublease. To protect their position, the landlord should have responded formally to the sublease notification, expressly refusing or accepting. Going forward, landlords should always reply in writing to any subletting notices, clearly stating their position. This prevents any ambiguity and reinforces their rights under property law.

Application pratique:

This ruling underscores that a subtenant cannot rely on the head tenant's assertion of consent without landlord confirmation. The subtenant should have demanded to see the landlord's written authorisation before signing the sublease. In this situation, the subtenant may have a claim against the head tenant for misrepresentation, but their right to occupy ends with the head lease. Before entering a sublease, always verify that the landlord has given explicit written consent.