Painting a rented house, who is responsible?

When the lease ends, it almost always does whitewash the wallswhich meanwhile they could get dirty due to dirt or traces of moisture. So we need to understand who should paint the rented apartment: the tenant or the owner of the house? Mostly the owner is in charge of painting the walls I:

  • damage to the walls is a consequence of the tenant’s normal use of the apartment
  • There is no clause in the contract obliging the lessee to pay for the painting

End of the contract, obligations of the lessee

After the end of the rental agreement, the tenant is obliged according to the provisions of the relevant law return the property under the same conditions where it was delivered. So in good shape. Because Possible damagesdue to negligence or carelessness of the tenant, they need to be fixed at his expense. All other signs of wear and tear that occur normal use of the apartmentare instead paid by the owner who is responsible for paying the normal maintenance costs.

In short, unless there is a specific clause in the contract, it is not always the responsibility of the tenant to paint the walls of the rented house. As we said, we actually have to distinguish between:

  • normal use of the apartment and deterioration due to the passage of time
  • damages arising from the tenant’s carelessness or negligence

In the first case, when the walls are soiled by moisture or normal use, it is not the tenant who has to pay for whitening. The deterioration is actually caused by it normal passage of time and it is therefore about routine maintenance.

The same applies if it has a tenant he drilled the walls to hang pictures or shelves. The Court of Cassation decided that even these cases they are part of the normal use of the apartment. Then the owner cannot claim compensation and cannot keep the deposit paid when signing the contract.

How much is the tenant responsible for whitewashing the walls?

But are there cases when the tenant has to pay for painting the rented apartment? This obligation exists if wall damage come from his carelessness or negligence. In short, from a improper behavior of the handler.

Of course, in this case, the owner of the house must be able to demonstrate that any damage was caused by negligence. It could be the solution take pictures before and after the end of the tenancy to clarify the condition of the house at the time of handover.

Does someone who leaves their rented house have to paint? The answer is also positive in another case: if the contract contains a specific clause which obliges the tenant to paint the walls after the end of the lease. In this case, the tenant is certainly already aware of the problem he has signed the contract.

When should the rental house be painted?

In most cases, the homeowner provides painting at the beginning of the lease. In fact, the law requires the landlord to be responsible for painting the walls. This is the rule unless the tenancy agreement contains, as already mentioned, a clause which charges the tenant the cost of the service. A clause that the tenant must accept and sign.

For this reason, it is advisable to carefully distinguish between all possible cases. The cost of painting is borne by the owner if:

  • damage to the walls is a consequence of the tenant’s normal use of the apartment
  • There is no clause in the contract obliging the tenant to paint the walls

Instead, it is up to the tenant to:

  • the damage was caused by carelessness or negligence and the owner is able to prove it
  • there is a clause in the contract that obliges the tenant to paint the walls

Business contract case

But what happens in case business contract? Who is responsible for painting after the tenancy ends? Recent resolution of the court of cassationwhich dates from 2019, spoke against the principle that in the case of a specific clause in the contract, the painting must be provided by the tenant.

Judges have recalled Act 392 of 1978 and they thought thatduty to bear tenant does not exist even though he expressly signed a contract containing the relevant clause.

According to the Supreme Court the clause would be void because it would attribute a undue advantage to the lessor, transferring the costs of routine maintenance to the tenant. In fact, the only consideration that the landlord can legitimately demand from the contract is the rent.

In the event instead rent for housing was Act 392 of 1978 repealed by law 431/98so ifMandatory painting is expected from the contract, this is due because the agreement is valid.

Leave a Comment