Background

A company filed a case against a defendant and requested the court to order the defendant to vacate some housing units.

The defendant requested the court to order the company to pay the maintenance costs the defendants had paid.

The court ruled that the defendant should vacate the housing units and excluded the request made by the defendant because they had not paid the fees.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court abandoned the appealed ruling and rejected the case.

Decision

The company appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in its grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law because the court had considered the contract as having been extended once the defendant had informed the company that they wanted to extend the tenancy agreement.