Abstract

Art. 18 of the Tenant Protection Act raises doubts as to how the concept of the landlord who may claim damages from the tenant occupying the premises without legal title is to be interpreted. This concept is understood autonomously under the Tenant Protection Act. According to the definition formulated in Art 2.1.2 of the Tenant Protection Act, the landlord does not necessarily have to be a person who has the ownership right to the property within the meaning of Art. 140 of the Civil Code, but is the person with whom the tenant is bound by a rental agreement or another legal relationship entitling them to use the premises.
The provisions of Art. 18 of the Tenant Protection Act, however, refer to the situation following expiration of this legal relationship. In addition, the attribute of the landlord within the meaning of the Tenant Protection Act may be enjoyed by more than one entity, and this potentially may give rise to the risk of double compensation. The Supreme Court tried to resolve these problems in several judgments, but this only has led to greater complication. The article draws attention to the fact that it is crucial to identify the injured party. It can only be the person who has the right to hold a thing (this right does not have to arise from the ownership right to property as long as it is effective vis-à-vis the owner). How the concept of the owner is comprehended is of secondary importance.