The Fifth Section of the Provincial Court has rejected an eviction for non-payment in Lanzarote, considering that it was the owner who was obstructing the payment of the rent. The owner's claim was already dismissed by the Court of First Instance number 1 of Arrecife, but she appealed the ruling,
According to the judgment issued by the Provincial Court on March 26, the property changed ownership in 1999, but the new owner "never communicated" this circumstance to the tenant, so he "continued to pay the rent into a current account of the mother" of the plaintiff, who was the previous owner.
However, she "blocked said account, preventing the payment of rents accrued between October 2015 and April 2016." Even so, the tenant "also tried to pay the rent by postal order to the address of the brother" of the plaintiff, believing that "he could be the new landlord." However, these postal orders were "returned to him."
Faced with this, the tenant decided in November 2016 to deposit the money, which amounted to 249.49 euros, in the Court, until "in April 2017" he was "required to pay" by the new owner. Then, he informed her that he had paid the rents in the Court and requested the Court to return the money to him "for having finally identified its legitimate recipient." However, five days before it was deposited, she filed a lawsuit requesting his eviction for non-payment.
"There was no non-payment of rent but an obstacle to its collection"
"There was never a deliberate delay in the payment of rent attributable to the tenant. On the contrary, we appreciate that said delay was motivated by an obstructing behavior of the landlord or one that did little to facilitate the fulfillment of that obligation by the tenant," the Provincial Court points out, which notes that "it is not recorded that the new identity of his landlord was provided to him, nor the reason why the payments were returned," so it insists that "there was no non-payment of rent but an obstacle to its collection by the landlord.
"The court does not appreciate any negligence or reluctant will to pay in the tenant's behavior, since, since he knew the identity of his new landlord, he did everything possible to recover the deposited money and proceed to deliver it to her," adds the Provincial Court, which thus considers "unnecessary" the filing of a lawsuit by the owner, given that she "already knew" the "will to pay materialized in the deposit file" carried out in the Court, and therefore rejects the appeal that she filed.
