Abstract

In the gloss the author approved of the position of the Supreme Court expressed in the thesis of its judgment of 10 February 2017, V CNP 32/16, that vacating the premises by the tenant uninterested in continuation of rental and handing over the keys to notary public as a person of public trust is not a sufficient premise for expiration of the obligational bond between parties of a rental agreement. Although a rental agreement may be terminated by the parties thereto also implicitly, such a behaviour of the tenant should in principle be classified as unilateral breach of contract on the part of the tenant giving rise to the obligation to pay rent and other dues as agreed therein until this legal relationship is ended. In the author’s opinion certain issues raised in the substantiation for this judgment as concerns the issue of termination (expiration) of rental need to be clarified and expanded.