Abstract

The article discusses the controversial issue concerning the amount of compensation due to the landlord from the former tenant entitled to social housing for the period of occupancy between the expiration of the rental agreement to the eviction judgment becoming final. Against the position of the Supreme Court expressed in the resolution of 6.12.2012, III CZP 72/12, the author opts for using in such a case Art. 18.3 of the Protection of Tenants’ Rights Act, which introduces the obligation to pay compensation in the amount of the rent provided for in the expired rental agreement. The judgment as to entitlement to social housing is merely declarative and does not award a claim for signing a social housing rental agreement.

The author argues that the decision concerning eligibility for social housing is only a confirmation by the court of the existence of circumstances warranting the award of social housing.

As a conclusion it is indicated that the obligational relationship under which the former tenant should pay the owner (or another entitled person) for the occupancy arises upon expiration of the rental agreement and lasts until the municipal authorities make an offer to the former tenant to sign a rental agreement for social housing. This interpretation does not stand contrary to the constitutional protection of ownership rights because of its restrictions as regards the efforts aimed to meet the housing needs of tenants.