In this article I will try to shed some light on the age-old issue of house painting when a lease ends. Is the painting of the apartment the responsibility of the tenant? Does the landlord have to do it? These and other questions will be answered by reading the entire article.
By law, who is responsible for whitewashing the house when a lease ends?
Let's start with the normative references:
In Italy, there is no law specifically regulating the issue of apartment whitewashing when a lease ends.
Therefore, we must legally "reconstruct" with the prevailing sources governing the relationship between tenant and landlord.
Let's start with the basics.
The Civil Code establishes 3 specific burdens on the landlord (under Article 1575) when it comes to lease, namely:
- Deliver the leased thing to the tenant in a good state of repair
- Maintain it in a state to serve the agreed use
- Ensuring peaceful enjoyment during the lease
On the tenant side, on the other hand, there is an article that specifies the tenant's main obligations when returning the leased property:
- The tenant must return the leased thing in the same state in which he received it, in accordance with the description made of it by the parties, except for deterioration or consumption resulting from the use of the thing in accordance with the contract.
- Must return the movable property to the place where it was delivered
- And that , always the tenant, is not liable for perishing or deterioration due to old age ( things are ruined by the fact that they are old)
These are the two main sources ( very dated actually ) that regulate the handover and redelivery of a rented house. According to the above, if a landlord delivers the house whitewashed and clean, he is entitled to get it at the end of the lease in the same state as it was delivered, right?
Unfortunately, the story is not so simple and does not end with these simple arguments. It is that little phrase at the end of the first paragraph that makes it more complicated. That "except for deterioration or consumption resulting from the use of the thing in accordance with the contract," leaves room for jurists for interpretations of all kinds.
It is on the basis of this assumption that the Supreme Court has issued several rulings on the subject, stating:
" ... the clause that obliges the tenant to eliminate, at the end of the relationship, the consequences of the deterioration suffered by the leased thing due to its normal use (in this case, placing on him the expense of painting the walls) must be considered NULL, pursuant to Art. 79 of the same L. 392/78, because by burdening the tenant with an expense of ordinary maintenance, which the law places , as a rule, at the expense of the landlord ( art 1576 cc ) it gives the latter an advantage in addition to the rent, the only consideration lawfully agreed upon to be borne by the tenant."
Cassation 5/08/2002 n 11703
And again:
"...It follows that the expense of painting cannot be charged to the tenant, since it is part of the normal degradation of use that after a certain period of time furniture and paintings leave marks on the walls "
Cass. 1984 no. 4357
Having made these due preambles, I must admit that the legislation is, in my opinion, deficient when it comes to housing tenancy. Reference is made to the Civil Code ( written in '42 ) and the main laws ( 1978 and 1998 ). The first cassation ruling that I reported refers to Article 79 of Law 392/78, which was repealed by the later Law 431/98 on residential leases, which eliminated the prohibition of special covenants in the contract that could "favor" the landlord.
So, who has to paint after the rent?
Although case law is inclined to shift the burden of painting the apartment to the landlord at the end of the lease, it is good to reckon with the realities of the market and the needs of the parties.
Often for reasons of hygiene or decorum, the tenant demands that the house be whitewashed before he or she moves in. Although the request is legitimate on the part of the tenant, this can cause a problem at a time when ( as in this historical period ) the turn-over of tenants is very frequent and the average time of a tenancy has drastically reduced ( 18-36 months ). Frequently whitewashing a property, besides being a cost, is a practice that is not good for the house.
The more layers of paint there are on the walls, the more chance there is that it will peel off the plaster, causing issues that then require a mason to remedy. Also, The repeal of Article 79 of Law 392/78. has in fact made it possible to include clauses in the contract that stipulate additional benefits for the landlord when leasing property.
Therefore, if a landlord "imposes" the whitewashing clause at the end of the contract as a prerequisite for leasing the property, the tenant, by accepting it, will be put in a condition where refusing to do so will become much more complicated and will have to be established in legal litigation.
Personally, I find it common sense to agree to whitewash the house at the tenant's expense after use, as long as the painting was done before the tenant moved in. In all my contracts I include this clause if the property has been whitewashed prior to entry, noting the actual need for whitewashing upon release of the house. It often happens that the tenant stays in the apartment less than 12 months and a new whitewashing would not only be unnecessary, but even counterproductive. In that case I agree with the parties not to whitewash the house at the end of the contract.
On the contrary, if the house is handed over at the beginning of the contract, unpainted, I have the tenant sign the contract with no obligation to paint at the end of the lease.
As always, when it comes to real estate in Italy, there is law, there is case law, there is custom and there is common sense. I always try to use the latter to settle potential disputes between the parties, and thus avoid unnecessary court proceedings.
The rulings issued give direction, but they must be read carefully and related to the litigation the courts are called upon to adjudicate. It is not always easy to tell whether the deterioration of the property is due to the age of the property or to improper use made by the tenant. Very frequent example is the presence of mold in the premises due to lack of proper ventilation or because cloths are hung out inside. In that case, the burden of whitewashing falls on the tenant because, due to his way of conducting the rented property has resulted in the formation of moisture ( provided that the moisture is not attributable to construction factors of the building ).
My advice to you, regardless of whether you are a tenant or a landlord, is to take nice detailed photos of the house at the beginning of the contract and share them with the other party in a way that attests to the state of maintenance of the house prior to its use. This will allow you to have no disputes at the end of the lease!
Do you need counseling for a lease? Contact me and state your case, I will try to solve it!
