Nullity of Commercial Lease Notice: When the Tenant Loses the Right to Challenge

Imagine: you are the owner of commercial premises in Plouhinec, Finistère. You give notice to your tenant to recover the premises. But then, instead of leaving, the tenant sues you to obtain an eviction indemnity. Then, during the proceedings, they claim that your notice is void. Can they both demand an indemnity and challenge the notice? This is the question the Court of Cassation decided in 1973, in a judgment that remains authoritative.

This judgment, delivered on 16 April 1973 (No. 72-10.291), sets out a simple but often overlooked principle: a commercial tenant who claims an eviction indemnity within the time limit cannot later invoke the nullity of the notice, unless they prove that this nullity caused them damage. In short, they cannot "have their cake and eat it". But what exactly does this mean for a landlord in Audierne or a tenant in Quimper? Let us analyse this landmark decision together.

Before going further, a reminder: the eviction indemnity is a sum due to the commercial tenant when the landlord refuses to renew the lease without a serious and legitimate reason. It compensates for the loss of the business. The time limit to claim it is two years from the notice. After this period, the tenant is barred (loses their right).

The Facts: A Story Like Those That Happen Every Day

The case starts in Plouhinec, a commune in southern Finistère, between Audierne and the Pointe du Raz. Mr Le Roux, owner of a building used for commercial purposes, gives notice to his tenants, Mr and Mrs Tanguy, who run a grocery shop. The notice is served in 1968, with a six-month notice period. The Tanguys do not challenge the notice at the time. But, one year later, they sue Mr Le Roux before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Quimper to obtain payment of an eviction indemnity. They consider the refusal to renew is abusive.

During the proceedings, the Tanguys change strategy. They argue that the notice is void because it does not comply with legal formalities (for example, it was not served by a bailiff or does not mention the time limits for appeal). They therefore ask the court to declare that the lease continues and that they do not have to leave. Mr Le Roux, for his part, argues that the tenants have lost any right to challenge the notice since they have already claimed the eviction indemnity.

The Quimper court rules in favour of the Tanguys: it annuls the notice and holds that the lease is still in force. Mr Le Roux appeals. The Rennes Court of Appeal upholds the judgment. The landlord then appeals to the Court of Cassation. The case goes up to the Court of Cassation, which quashes the appeal judgment and refers the case to another court. This is a major twist: the Quimper judges were wrong. But why?

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on Article 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Article 114 of the new Code of Civil Procedure). This article provides that no nullity of a procedural act (such as a notice) can be admitted unless the person invoking it proves that it caused them damage. This is the principle "no nullity without prejudice".

In this case, the Tanguys sued Mr Le Roux for payment of an eviction indemnity within the two-year period. By doing so, they implicitly recognised the validity of the notice: one does not claim an eviction indemnity if one considers that the lease continues. The Court of Cassation deduces that the tenants suffered no damage from the alleged nullity, since they were able to assert their rights (to obtain the indemnity).

However, note: the Court does not say that every notice is valid, nor that the tenant can never challenge it. It simply says that if the tenant has already taken action by claiming the indemnity, it is too late to go back. What few people know is that this reasoning is consistent with the spirit of the commercial lease regime (Decree of 30 September 1953): protecting the tenant while ensuring a certain legal certainty for the landlord.

undefined, I have come across cases where tenants, after suing for payment of the indemnity, tried to challenge the notice to remain in the premises. This 1973 judgment opposes a bar to their claim. In short, the tenant must choose: either accept the notice and claim the indemnity, or challenge the notice within two months (the time limit at the time) and request renewal. But the two options are incompatible.

What This Means for You — Concretely

For the landlord: you can be reassured. If your tenant claims an eviction indemnity, they cannot later argue that your notice is void for a mere formality. Concrete example: in Audierne, a landlord gave notice to his tenant to sell the premises. The tenant sues for indemnity. Six months later, they claim that the notice was not served at their actual home. Too late! They have lost the right to challenge it. You save a long and costly procedure.

For the commercial tenant: be vigilant. If you receive a notice, you have two options: either accept it and claim the eviction indemnity within two years (on pain of being barred), or challenge it in court within a very short period (generally two months). But you cannot combine them. If you claim the indemnity, you validate the notice, even if it is irregular. A specific example: in Plouhinec, a tenant of a bar-tobacco shop obtained an indemnity of €80,000 for loss of business. They then wanted to stay in the premises by invoking a formal nullity. The court applied the 1973 judgment: they had already recognised the notice by claiming the indemnity.

For the purchaser: if you buy an occupied premises, check whether the tenant has brought an action for indemnity. If so, the notice is deemed valid and you can recover the premises at the end of the notice period, subject to payment of the indemnity.

In practice, the Court of Cassation has repeatedly confirmed this principle (Civ. 3e, 14 June 1989, No. 87-14.754; 16 December 1992, No. 91-10.198). The rule is therefore well established.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• For the landlord: have your notice served by a bailiff with all required particulars. Even if the nullity can be cured by the tenant's behaviour, it is better to have a proper notice. Check the notice period (6 months for a commercial lease) and the grounds (recovery, sale, construction, etc.).
• For the tenant: do not delay in reacting. Upon receiving the notice, consult a lawyer. You have two months to challenge a notice refusing renewal. If you wait, you risk losing your right to remain in the premises.
• For both parties: keep all documents. The original notice, acknowledgements of receipt, exchanges of correspondence. In case of dispute, these pieces of evidence are essential.
• If you are a landlord and the tenant claims an indemnity, do not panic. This means the notice is deemed valid. You can negotiate the amount of the indemnity or challenge its principle if the tenant has committed a fault (e.g., failure to maintain).

Further Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

The 1973 judgment is part of a consistent line of authority. Before it, the Court of Cassation had already held that a claim for an eviction indemnity amounted to a waiver of the right to challenge the notice (Civ. 3e, 13 February 1969, No. 67-11.320). Since then, it has clarified that a tenant who sues for payment of the indemnity after having challenged the notice is inadmissible (Civ. 3e, 14 June 1989, No. 87-14.754). In other words, the order of actions matters: if you challenge the notice first, you can still claim the indemnity if you lose. But if you claim the indemnity first, you can no longer challenge.

The tendency of the courts is to favour stability in contractual relations. Judges do not like changes of position that create legal uncertainty. Thus, the rule is now well established: the tenant must make a clear and definitive choice.

For the future, nothing suggests a reversal. On the contrary, the ordinance of 10 February 2016 strengthened the principle of estoppel (prohibition against contradicting oneself to the detriment of others), which goes in the same direction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can I challenge a notice that I have already accepted?
R: No, if you have manifested your acceptance by claiming the eviction indemnity, you can no longer challenge the notice. That is what the 1973 judgment says.

Q: What should I do if I receive a notice that I consider abusive?
R: You must act quickly. Consult a lawyer within two months to challenge the notice before the court. If you exceed this time limit, you lose the right to remain in the premises.

Q: What is the time limit to claim an eviction indemnity?
R: Two years from the date of the notice. After this period, you are barred and can obtain nothing.

Q: Can the landlord refuse to pay the indemnity if the notice is void?
R: No, because the nullity of the notice results in the continuation of the lease, so no indemnity is due. But if the tenant has already claimed the indemnity, they cannot invoke the nullity.

Q: Does this rule apply to all commercial leases?
R: Yes, regardless of the type of activity (commerce, craft, industry). Only short-term derogatory leases (less than 2 years) are exempt from this rule.

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 →