In this case decided by the Rennes Court of Appeal (5th chamber, September 4, 2024, no. 21/07235, see below), the solar panels at the heart of the dispute were installed on the roof of a rented pavilion in the Quimper region, but their owner was the owner of the accommodation who was also the only one to receive the income they generated. However, the roof in question caught fire at the end of June 2017, a few months after the tenants moved in. The panels were installed in September by a zinc roofing company whose manager is none other than the landlord.
After the disaster made the house uninhabitable, owners and tenants were unable to agree on the origin of the disaster and the matter went to court. The Rennes Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the Quimper judicial court as reported by the lawyer specializing in real estate law, Me Gabriel Neu-Janicki, on his blog. An expert report had in fact proven the failure of the photovoltaic panels and it is therefore the lessor who assumes responsibility since he must ensure peaceful enjoyment for his tenant. “The presumption of liability of the tenant must therefore be rejected, proof of a construction defect, unrelated to the tenant's maintenance obligations being reported”need Me Neu-Janicki.
No maintenance obligation on the part of the tenant
Indeed, if article 1733 of the Civil Code provides that the tenant is presumed responsible in the event of fire, there are two families of exemptions. Either in the situation of a fortuitous event or force majeure, or in the presence of a construction defect or an external origin (such as a fire spreading from a neighboring construction). We are in the case of a construction defect and moreover the owner cannot even invoke a maintenance obligation which falls on the tenant since these panels are not included in the lease contract since they exclusively benefit the tenant. owner.
It therefore follows that the owner is liable for not having ensured the “peaceful enjoyment” of the rented property. The Court of Appeal confirms in every respect the reasoning of the first instance: the owner is held responsible for the damage suffered by the tenant and must therefore assume the consequences.
Related News :