Fraudulent eviction: the dishonest occupant cannot escape the penalty payment

Imagine: you own a flat in Annecy, let to a couple. One day, you discover that your tenant has sublet without authorisation to a third party. Worse still, this third party moved in by deception, by falsifying a lease. You start eviction proceedings. The judge orders eviction under a penalty payment (financial penalty for each day of delay). But the occupant, to avoid this penalty payment, invokes a protective law for occupants in good faith: the law of 21 July 1949.

The question is simple: can an occupant who entered the premises by fraud rely on this protection to avoid paying the penalty payment? The Court of Cassation answers clearly: no. And that is the whole point of this ruling of 10 February 1993, a decision that secures the position of owners faced with squatters or dishonest occupants.

But what does this actually change for you, as an owner or property professional? Let us delve into the facts, the judges' reasoning, and practical advice to avoid this type of dispute.

The facts: a story like many that happen every day

Mr X is the owner of a flat in Paris. He lets it to a female tenant, who decides to sublet the property to a third party without the owner's consent. This third party, let us call him Mr Y, moves into the flat. But he does not stop at a sublease: he manages to pass himself off as a regular tenant by producing a false lease. In short, he entered the premises by fraud (deceptive manoeuvre).

The owner, alerted, applies to the urgent applications judge to obtain Mr Y's eviction. The judge orders eviction, and the Paris Court of Appeal confirms this decision on 16 January 1991, attaching a provisional penalty payment (sum of money to be paid for each day of delay if the eviction is not voluntarily carried out within a certain period). Mr Y, however, does not leave the premises. The owner then requests the enforcement of the penalty payment (i.e., the calculation and payment of the sum due).

But Mr Y resists: he invokes the law of 21 July 1949, which protects occupants in good faith by allowing them to benefit from a grace period or to suspend the penalty payment. The Court of Appeal follows him, considering that the penalty payment cannot be enforced before the actual eviction. The owner appeals to the Court of Cassation.

What few people know is that the law of 21 July 1949 was designed to protect legitimate occupants (for example, tenants in good faith facing difficulties). But can it protect a fraudster? The Court of Cassation will decide.

The reasoning of the court — explained

The Court of Cassation quashes the Court of Appeal's decision. Its reasoning is inexorable: the occupant who entered the premises by fraud cannot rely on the derogating provisions of the law of 21 July 1949 to avoid the enforcement of the penalty payment in accordance with the law of 5 July 1972.

To understand, you need to know that the law of 5 July 1972 allows the judge to order a penalty payment to compel a person to comply with a court decision (here, the eviction). And the law of 21 July 1949 allows the occupant in good faith to obtain delays or exemptions. But the legislator never intended that this protection should apply to those who entered by fraud.

In other words, the Court of Cassation considers that fraud (the fact of having entered by deception) corrupts everything: the occupant cannot hide behind a protective law when he himself has violated the law. This is a fundamental principle in law: fraus omnia corrumpit (fraud corrupts everything).

undefined, I have encountered cases where squatters tried to invoke social laws to remain in the premises. But the case law is consistent: initial bad faith prevents benefiting from protections. Here, the Court of Cassation reminds us that the penalty payment can be enforced as soon as the eviction has not been voluntarily carried out, regardless of whether the occupant is still in the premises. The amount of the penalty payment runs from the date set by the judge, and the fraudster must pay.

This is not an evolution, but a confirmation: as early as 1993, the Court of Cassation closed the door to fraudulent occupants. A decision that remains relevant today, particularly in the face of the resurgence of squats.

What this changes for you — concretely

For landlord owners, this decision is a powerful weapon. If you obtain an eviction order with a penalty payment, and the occupant entered by fraud (false lease, clandestine intrusion, etc.), you can request enforcement of the penalty payment without waiting for the actual eviction. Concretely, if the penalty payment is set at €100 per day, and the occupant stays for 6 months, you could claim €18,000, even if he has not yet left.

Let us take an example in Villeurbanne: you own a studio. An individual poses as a tenant by producing a false contract. You obtain an eviction order with a penalty payment of €50 per day. He stays for 4 months. You can claim €6,000 in penalty payments, in addition to the unpaid rent.

For tenants in good faith, this decision does not directly concern you, but it indirectly protects you: your landlord cannot treat you as a fraudster if you are regular. On the other hand, if you sublet without authorisation, you risk being considered fraudulent.

For property professionals (agents, property managers), this case law helps you advise your clients: in case of fraudulent occupation, do not delay in taking legal action and requesting a penalty payment. And above all, inform owners that enforcement can be requested even without eviction.

Be careful, however: this decision only applies to fraudulent occupants. If the occupant is in good faith (e.g., a tenant with a valid lease who no longer pays), the rules are different. A distinction must be made.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Scrupulously verify the identity and documents of any potential occupant. Request an identity document, proof of address, and check the authenticity of the documents. If in doubt, contact the previous agency or owner.
• Draft a written lease and detail the prohibitions on subletting. A clear clause will allow you to prove fraud in the event of unauthorised subletting.
• In case of fraudulent occupation, act quickly. Apply to the urgent applications judge as soon as the first signs appear. The longer you wait, the more the occupant settles in and invokes rights.
• Request a dissuasive penalty payment from the first decision. Calculate an amount that encourages a quick departure (e.g., €50 to €100 per day). And do not forget: you can enforce it even if the occupant is still there, provided you prove the fraud.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a consistent line: the Court of Cassation has always refused to protect fraudulent occupants. A ruling of 12 March 1985 (No. 83-16.425) had already held that the 1949 law does not apply to someone who moved in by trespass. More recently, in a ruling of 6 September 2018 (No. 17-22.176), the Court confirmed that the winter truce does not benefit squatters.

The trend is therefore clear: the courts are increasingly severe with fraudulent occupants. The ALUR law of 2014 strengthened tools to combat squats, and case law follows. For the future, we can expect judges to continue to restrict exceptions for fraudsters, particularly regarding grace periods.

What this means for you: if you are faced with a fraudulent occupant, the law is on your side. But you need to act quickly and with the right legal arguments. A specialised lawyer can make a difference.

Frequently asked questions

Can I request the eviction of an occupant without title if I have a false lease?

Yes. Fraud allows you to obtain an eviction in summary proceedings, without waiting for a decision on the merits. The judge finds the trespass and orders immediate eviction.

What if the fraudulent occupant does not pay the penalty payment?

You must obtain a decision enforcing the penalty payment, then start enforcement proceedings (attachment of bank accounts, wages, etc.). The penalty payment is a debt that you can enforce.

What are the time limits for acting in case of fraudulent occupation?

There is no legal time limit, but you must act quickly: as soon as you discover the fraud, apply to the judge. If you wait too long, the occupant might acquire rights (e.g., adverse possession after 30 years). In practice, act within weeks of discovery.

Does the winter truce apply to squatters?

No. The winter truce (from 1 November to 31 March) does not apply to occupants who entered by trespass. The Court of Cassation reminded us of this in 2018.

Can I cut off the water and electricity to make a fraudulent occupant leave?

No, this is prohibited. You must go through a court decision. Cutting off utilities is an offence (home invasion). Use a bailiff and a lawyer.

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 →