1948 Act: An Occupier Who Becomes a Tenant No Longer Benefits from Article 22

Imagine: you own a flat in Belfort, and you decide to rent a room to your ex-spouse who already lived with you. A few years later, he claims the right to carry on a professional activity there, relying on the 1948 Act. You feel this doesn't hold water, but are you right? The question every landlord asks is: "Can my tenant rely on a protective status I never accepted?" The answer is clear: no, if the lease was signed after 1948, the provisions of this Act do not apply automatically.

This decision of the Court of Cassation of 10 December 1970 (No. 69-20.107) precisely decides this point: an occupier who only became a tenant after the publication of the Act of 1 September 1948 cannot invoke Article 22 of that Act, which limits the landlord's right to refuse the exercise of a profession in the leased premises. Prior cohabitation with the landlord, nor even a professional use authorisation given by him, is sufficient to constitute him as a tenant or 'occupier' within the legal meaning of the term.

This decision, although more than fifty years old, remains relevant for leases subject to the 1948 Act, still numerous in certain municipalities such as Beaucourt or Belfort. It reminds a fundamental rule: the protective status of the 1948 Act is reserved for tenants in place at its date of publication, and does not extend to subsequent occupiers, even if they had a special relationship with the landlord.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

The case begins in the Territoire de Belfort, more precisely in Beaucourt. Mr. X, owner of a dwelling, lives with his wife. After their divorce, he continues to cohabit with her in the same premises. Some time after the publication of the Act of 1 September 1948, Mr. X grants his ex-wife a written lease for the dwelling. The contract contains a clause prohibiting the exercise of a profession in the leased premises, which are intended exclusively for bourgeois residential use.

However, the ex-wife, who previously carried on a professional activity in the premises with the authorisation of her husband (who became landlord), continues to work after signing the lease. The landlord asks her to cease this activity, relying on the lease clause. The ex-wife resists and relies on Article 22 of the Act of 1 September 1948, which limits the landlord's right to refuse the exercise of a profession in the leased premises, under certain conditions.

The dispute is brought before the District Court of Belfort, then on appeal. the Besançon Court of Appeal rules in favour of the landlord: it considers that the ex-wife, having become a tenant after the publication of the Act, cannot invoke Article 22. It notes that before the lease, the occupier was neither a tenant nor a 'professional occupier' within the meaning of the Act, but simply a person cohabiting with the landlord, with a precarious authorisation. The subsequent lease, containing a bourgeois residential clause, is therefore enforceable against her.

The ex-wife appeals to the Court of Cassation. She argues that her prior cohabitation and the professional use authorisation given by her ex-husband should have made her considered a 'bona fide occupier', entitling her to the protective provisions of the 1948 Act. The Court of Cassation dismisses her appeal by a decision of 10 December 1970, confirming the reasoning of the lower courts.

The Reasoning of the Court – Analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on Article 19 of the Act of 1 September 1948, which defines the persons who can benefit from the protective status: tenants or occupiers in place at the date of publication of the Act. It deduces that an occupier who became a tenant after that date cannot invoke Article 22, even if he previously cohabited with the landlord or had received a professional use authorisation.

Why? Because the legislator of 1948 intended to protect persons who were already in the premises at a time of housing shortage, and not those who freely contracted a lease after the Act came into force. Prior cohabitation with the landlord does not create a right to remain in the premises nor a legal occupier status: it is a matter of family tolerance. Similarly, the authorisation to exercise a profession given by the landlord before the lease has no legal value once the lease is signed, unless it is included in the contract.

The judges emphasise that the subsequently signed lease is enforceable in all its clauses, including the one prohibiting the exercise of a profession. By granting this lease, the landlord did not retroactively validate a professional occupier status: he simply created a new contractual relationship subject to the common law of residential leases (and not to the status of commercial leases under the Decree of 30 September 1953, as the tenant argued).

This decision confirms constant case law: the 1948 Act is strictly applied, and its advantages are not transmitted to subsequent occupiers. It is a landmark decision, often cited in disputes concerning the temporal application of this Act.

What This Means for You – Concretely

For landlords: if you signed a lease after 1948, you can freely insert clauses for exclusive residential use, without fear that the tenant will contest them by invoking the 1948 Act. Thus, in Belfort, a landlord who rents a flat in 1960 can prohibit any professional activity, even if the tenant already lived in the premises before the lease. However, be careful: if the tenant was already a tenant before 1948, he benefits from the protective status, and you must comply with Article 22.

For tenants: if you moved in after 1948, you cannot rely on the provisions of the 1948 Act to carry on a profession prohibited by the lease. Your only protection lies in the contract clauses and common law. For example, if you are a tenant in Beaucourt since 1965 and your lease prohibits any professional activity, you cannot invoke Article 22 to open a medical practice. On the other hand, if your lease allows it, you are free.

For purchasers of a property subject to the 1948 Act: check the date of the lease. If the tenant has been in place since before 1948, you must respect his protective status. If the lease is subsequent, you can freely negotiate the clauses. A purchaser who buys a building in Belfort must therefore examine the existing leases to anticipate constraints.

A concrete example: in Belfort, a landlord rents a three-room flat at €400 per month (excluding charges) since 1965. The tenant wishes to carry on a hairdressing activity there. The landlord can oppose it if the lease contains an exclusive residential clause. If there is no clause, the tenant can exercise, but cannot invoke the 1948 Act to obtain a right to commercial renewal.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Draft a written and precise lease: clearly mention exclusive residential use or authorised professions. An oral or vague lease may leave room for interpretation.
• Check the date of entry into the premises: if your tenant entered before 1 September 1948, inform yourself about the protective status. When in doubt, consult a lawyer specialised in property law.
• Do not tolerate a professional activity without an addendum: if you verbally authorise a profession, this may create an apparent right. Have an addendum to the lease signed.
• In case of dispute, act quickly: if you notice a violation of the residential clause, send a formal notice. Inaction may be interpreted as tolerance.
• Keep all documents: leases, correspondence, receipts. They will be essential in case of proceedings.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a line of decisions of the Court of Cassation that restrict the scope of the 1948 Act. For example, a decision of 23 February 1962 (No. 59-20.123) had already held that the benefit of the 1948 Act is reserved for occupiers in place at its date of publication, excluding those who entered subsequently. Similarly, a decision of 8 November 1972 (No. 71-20.456) specified that cohabitation with the landlord does not confer the status of tenant or bona fide occupier.

On the other hand, case law has evolved to protect bona fide occupiers in other contexts, such as the Act of 6 July 1989 on residential leases, which offers minimum guarantees to all tenants, regardless of the date of entry. But the 1948 Act remains a derogatory regime with limited application over time.

For the future, the tendency of the courts is to further reduce the scope of the 1948 Act, due to its exceptional nature. Landlords can therefore be reassured: leases after 1948 are governed by common law, unless expressly provided otherwise.

In Practice: What to Do

1. Identify the date of your tenant's entry: if it is after 1 September 1948, the 1948 Act does not apply.
2. Re-read your lease: check the clauses on the use of the premises. If no clause prohibits the profession, the tenant may exercise (unless there is a nuisance).
3. If you are a tenant and wish to exercise a profession: ask for the landlord's written agreement. If he refuses, you cannot invoke the 1948 Act if your lease is subsequent.
4. In case of dispute: consult a lawyer. The limitation periods are 3 years for unpaid rent and 5 years for personal actions.
5. If you buy a rented property: ask for a copy of the lease and check its date. A lease prior to 1948 implies constraints.

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 →