Art. 687 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Termination of the contract for hiring a dwelling

оформляется на конкретный период. The contract of hiring a dwelling between individuals is drawn up for a specific period. It provides for such essential conditions as the order and amount of payment, the obligations and rights of the parties to the transaction, as well as their liability and the consequences of termination of the relationship.

Nuances of legislation

пользователем не допускается в силу ст. As a general rule, the unilateral termination of the contract of hiring a dwelling by a user is not permitted by virtue of Art. 310 of the Code. Normally there is a ban on refusal to fulfill obligations. However, the tenant of a dwelling house has the opportunity to terminate legal relations unilaterally. To do this, he must obtain the consent of the remaining persons who are constantly with him on this square and in writing to warn the owner for three months. The rules for the termination of legal relations are unilaterally determined by Art. 687 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Let's consider it in detail.

Termination of the contract for hiring a dwelling

In the above-mentioned norm, there are cases of unilateral termination of relations on the initiative of the user and the owner of the facility. In the first case, it is sufficient for the subject to obtain the consent of the persons residing with him permanently and to notify the landlord about his intentions within the prescribed period. The owner of the facility also has the opportunity to terminate the legal relationship unilaterally. In Art. определены следующие для этого основания: 687 of the Civil Code defined the following for this reason:

1. Non-payment by the user for half a year, if the agreement does not provide for a longer period. заключен на короткий период, то прекращение отношений по инициативе собственника допускается при невнесении установленной суммы более 2-х раз после окончания оговоренного временного промежутка. If the contract of hiring a dwelling between individuals is concluded for a short period, the termination of the relationship on the initiative of the owner is allowed if the established amount is not deposited more than 2 times after the end of the agreed time interval.
2. Corruption or destruction of the object by the user or other persons, for whose actions he is responsible.

An Important Moment

If, during the period established by the court, the user does not eliminate the violations committed and measures are not taken to eliminate them, upon the repeated application of the owner, a decision is made to terminate the contract. At the same time, at the petition of the defendant, the execution of the decision may be postponed. The extension of the period is allowed for no more than a year. P. 3 of Art. предусматривает, что действие соглашения может быть прекращено судом по требованию одного из участников спора, если объект перестал быть пригодным для использования его по назначению, признан находящимся в аварийном состоянии, а также в иных случаях, определенных в ЖК. 687 of the Civil Code provides that the agreement can be terminated by a court at the request of one of the parties to the dispute, if the object has ceased to be suitable for its intended use, recognized as being in an emergency condition, and in other cases identified in the LC.

Additionally

If the user of the object or person for whose actions he is responsible, exploit the property for other purposes or infringe upon the interests and rights of neighbors in a systematic manner, the owner can warn him about the need to eliminate these violations. If, after this, citizens continue to conduct unlawful behavior, the lender has the opportunity to terminate the agreement in court. In such a situation, the rules established in para. 4 2 items of the article in question.

Comments

Art. определяет несколько случаев, при которых действие соглашения может прекращаться по инициативе одного из участников. 687 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation defines several cases in which the agreement can be terminated at the initiative of one of the participants. In the sense of paragraph 1, the intentions of the user should be shared by all persons who are with him on one square. If one of them does not agree with the desire of a citizen, then the employer is replaced. In this case, the rules of Article 686 of the Code. User's right in Art. формулируется императивно. 687 of the Civil Code is formulated imperatively. This means that the agreement between him and the owner can not introduce additional conditions and responsibility for unilateral refusal. . They can not be introduced even by mutual agreement of the parties . The only negative consequence for the user in case of violation of the three-month period for notification may consist in imposing on him the obligation to pay for this period.

Specificity of bases

The landlord can terminate the contract of hiring of a dwelling only in a judicial order. The first reason for this is non-payment for half a year, if the agreement does not provide for a longer period. It should be noted that the legislation does not make it possible to terminate the contract depending on the presence of the fault of the user in the violation committed. In addition, the failure to pay covers also cases of debts for public services. However, hiring can be short-term. In this case, the law allows for the termination of legal relations if payment is not paid more than 2 times at the end of the period established for this period.

Damage / destruction of the object

They serve as the basis for termination of the agreement in the case when they are caused by the user himself and by persons for whose actions he is responsible. At the same time it does not matter whether intentional damage or destruction occurred or if they were due to imprudence. In principle, they can be the result of the user's failure to perform repair duties and maintain the premises in proper condition.

Non-intended operation / interference of neighbors

These actions can also be committed by the user himself or by persons for whose behavior he is responsible. Experts note that the conditions for termination of the agreement on these grounds are determined in the commented norm is rather blurry. For example, it is not entirely clear whether the owner's warning about the need to eliminate violations acts as a preliminary fact. Paragraph 4 states that the lender has the right to notify the user of this. It seems that this warning should be considered mandatory. In this case, it is valid for a year. In addition, from the literal interpretation of the commented rule, taking into account Article 688 of the Code, it follows that the consequences of non-elimination of violations and, consequently, termination of the contract are extended to all persons living with the citizen, and not only to those who directly allowed them. This circumstance can hardly be considered justified and consistent with the principles of legislation.

Features of the appeal to the court

The reasons given in the commented rule for termination of the agreement allow the owner to only send an application to the authorized body. The court, in turn, can satisfy the requirements or set a time limit for the user (not more than a year) to eliminate all violations. If the citizen does not take any measures to rectify the situation, then upon repeated application of the owner, the authorized body has the right to terminate the contract. However, in this case, at the petition of the defendant, the court can extend the time of execution of the decision, but not more than for a year.

Conclusion

The third paragraph of the rule provides for grounds on which either party can terminate the agreement through the court. This is allowed if the facility is in an emergency condition or unusable for its intended purpose. These characteristics of premises are determined in accordance with the Regulation approved by Government Decision No. 47 of 28.01.2006. For other reasons permitting the termination of legal relations, for example, one may include unauthorized reorganization / redevelopment and the refusal of the user to bring the object to its original form within a reasonable time.