Can a French Landlord End a Lease to Carry Out Works? The 2026 Rules on Decent Housing

Foreign owners who let a French apartment often face a difficult practical question: what can be done when substantial works are needed while a tenant is still living in the property? The question becomes more sensitive where the works concern an unsafe or substandard home. A landlord may think that ending the lease is the quickest solution. A tenant may argue that the landlord knew about the defect when the lease began and cannot use that defect as a reason to remove the tenant.

A judgment of the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation dated 4 June 2026 gives an important answer. It concerned a small studio that had already been judicially found unfit for habitation. The Court held that works intended to remedy an existing lack of decency could not, in those circumstances, constitute a legitimate and serious ground for notice. The decision does not mean that every renovation notice is invalid. It does mean that the history of the property, the landlord’s knowledge, the nature of the works and the legal reason stated in the notice must be examined together.

This article explains the distinction between ordinary improvement works, urgent repairs and works required because the premises were already unfit. It also explains the tenant’s continuing remedies, the three-year limitation period for certain claims, the evidence a foreign owner should preserve and the points that should be checked before serving a notice. The rules below concern residential letting and should be adapted to the actual lease, the premises and the procedural position of the parties.

I. The legal framework before any notice is served

A. The landlord’s continuing obligation to provide a decent home

French residential letting is not merely an exchange of rent for access to four walls. Article 1709 of the Civil Code describes the lease as a contract under which one party grants the enjoyment of a thing for a period of time in return for a price. The text can be read in its current official form at Article 1709 of the Civil Code. For a residential landlord, that contractual framework is supplemented by duties concerning the condition, maintenance and peaceful enjoyment of the premises.

Article 1719 is central. It requires the landlord to deliver the leased thing, to deliver a decent home when it is the tenant’s principal residence, to maintain the property for its agreed use and to ensure peaceful enjoyment during the lease. It also expressly provides that, where residential premises are unfit for habitation, the landlord cannot rely on the nullity or termination of the lease to seek the occupant’s eviction. The current official text is available at Article 1719 of the Civil Code.

Article 1720 adds a separate maintenance obligation. The landlord must deliver the premises in a condition suitable for all necessary repairs and must carry out, during the lease, repairs that become necessary, other than those classified as the tenant’s responsibility. Its official text is available at Article 1720 of the Civil Code. For a non-resident owner, the practical consequence is important: appointing a property manager does not by itself erase the owner’s contractual obligations. The owner should be able to show how reports were received, how contractors were instructed and how access and safety were managed.

The French expression logement décent (decent housing) should therefore be treated as a legal standard, not as a marketing description. The standard includes the absence of manifest risks to health or physical safety, the absence of infestations, a minimum energy-performance requirement and the equipment necessary for residential use. A lease clause stating that the tenant accepts the property “as is” does not automatically remove these mandatory duties.

The Third Civil Chamber made this point on 16 October 2025 in Cass. 3e civ., 16 October 2025, no. 24-16.682. The Court examined a lease clause by which tenants declared that they knew the premises and accepted their condition. It nevertheless held that such reasoning did not answer the landlord’s obligation to deliver decent premises, maintain them and guarantee peaceful enjoyment. The Court also noted that the appellate court had not characterised force majeure capable of exempting the landlord from those obligations.

For an owner living in London, New York or Sydney, this is a warning against treating a French inventory, a remote inspection or a translated email as a complete legal assessment. A defect can be visible and still engage the landlord’s obligations. A tenant’s initial knowledge may affect evidence and causation in some disputes, but it is not a universal waiver of the statutory and contractual framework.

There is also a scope question. The protection analysed here concerns a residential lease. In Cass. 3e civ., 14 December 2023, no. 21-21.964, the Cour de cassation explained that the specific rules defining the landlord’s obligation to provide a decent home apply to premises subject to a residential lease. That classification must be checked where a property is used as an office, seasonal accommodation, commercial space or a mixed-use premises.

Before deciding that a notice is available, the owner should identify the type of lease, the tenant’s principal residence status, the contract dates, any renewal, the property description and every existing report. A French residential tenancy is not converted into a vacant property simply because the owner has decided that renovation would be more convenient without the tenant.

B. The 4 June 2026 ruling and the distinction between works

The 2026 case involved a studio whose main room measured 8.84 square metres and which had been judicially found unfit for habitation. The landlord served notice and relied on a legitimate and serious reason connected with works. The Third Civil Chamber rejected the approach that would allow the landlord to use remedial works as the reason for ending a lease where the landlord had known of the lack of decency when the lease was concluded.

The full decision is Cass. 3e civ., 4 June 2026, no. 24-16.993. The Court’s reasoning links three ideas: the duty to deliver decent premises, the restrictions on eviction from unfit residential premises and the legal grounds on which a landlord may give notice. The phrase “Lorsque des locaux loués à usage d’habitation sont impropres à cet usage, le bailleur ne peut se prévaloir de la nullité du bail ou de sa résiliation pour demander l’expulsion de l’occupant” means that an owner cannot turn the property’s existing unfitness into a shortcut for eviction.

This should not be read as a general prohibition on a landlord carrying out works. French law recognises that a landlord may improve, maintain or reconfigure a property. The legal problem is the attempted use of a pre-existing breach as the justification for removing the person who is entitled to the protection of the lease. A planned kitchen replacement in an otherwise decent home is not the same factual situation as a notice served to cure a condition that the landlord knew existed at the start.

For practical purposes, works should be sorted into four groups. First are routine maintenance works that can be performed with continued occupation and reasonable coordination. Second are urgent safety works where immediate measures are needed to protect people or prevent serious damage. Third are substantial improvement or restructuring works that genuinely require vacant possession. Fourth are works whose sole or principal purpose is to cure a lack of decency known to the landlord when the lease was entered into. The fourth group is where the 2026 ruling creates the greatest risk for a notice.

The notice itself must also be examined. Under the residential tenancy rules considered in the 2026 judgment, a landlord’s notice may be based on a decision to recover the home, a decision to sell, or a legitimate and serious ground, including a tenant’s breach. The notice is not validated merely because the owner has a real project. It must satisfy the statutory form, timing and explanation requirements, and the stated reason must be genuine and legally capable of supporting the notice.

A foreign owner should distinguish a project plan from proof that the lease can lawfully end. An architect’s estimate may establish the scale of works, but it does not by itself answer whether the reason is legitimate and serious. A building permit may establish planning approval, but it does not by itself cure a defective notice. A contractor’s statement that the apartment should be empty may be useful evidence, but it does not override mandatory tenant protection.

The Court’s approach also makes chronology decisive. Preserve the condition report at the start of the lease, photographs, emails, inspection reports, tenant complaints, invoices, insurance correspondence and communications with the agent. Identify when each defect became known and when each decision was made. If the owner knew that the dwelling was not fit for its intended use before signing, a later notice framed as a works project may be challenged as an attempt to reverse the consequences of that knowledge.

Finally, do not confuse the end of a lease with an immediate right to take possession. Even a potentially valid notice has a date and procedural consequences. If the tenant remains, self-help measures such as changing locks, cutting utilities or removing belongings create separate risks. A contested departure should be handled through the proper French procedure, with the lease, notice, proof of service and property records available for review.

II. Remedies, evidence and a safe decision process

A. What a tenant may request and when claims become time-barred

A tenant confronted with an unfit home is not limited to waiting for the landlord to decide whether to renovate. The remedies depend on the facts, the lease and the evidence, but may include an application for works, compensation for loss of enjoyment, a rent-related remedy, or a challenge to the notice. A landlord should assume that a written complaint supported by photographs, expert evidence or an official inspection can become important in later proceedings.

Article 1217 of the Civil Code lists the contractual responses to non-performance: suspension in appropriate circumstances, specific performance, a reduction in price, termination and compensation, subject to compatibility. The official text obtained for this run is available at Article 1217 of the Civil Code. It does not determine the outcome of a residential dispute by itself, but it explains why a tenant may present several forms of relief when a landlord’s failure continues.

The second 4 June 2026 decision is particularly relevant to timing. In Cass. 3e civ., 4 June 2026, no. 24-11.437, the Court held that the tenant could pursue specific performance of the continuing obligation to provide decent housing for as long as the breach persisted, and could seek compensation for the harmful consequences during the three years preceding the court claim. The phrase “L’obligation de délivrance d’un logement décent, continue, est exigible pendant toute la durée du bail” means that the duty continues throughout the tenancy; it is not exhausted by handing over the keys at the beginning.

That decision has two practical consequences. First, a landlord cannot assume that a defect is legally irrelevant because the tenant has lived in the property for several years. Second, the tenant should not assume that every historic loss is recoverable indefinitely. The limitation rules and the way the claim is framed matter. A continuing obligation and a claim for past compensation do not necessarily have the same temporal treatment.

The owner should therefore act promptly after receiving a complaint. Ask for the precise defect, arrange a documented inspection, take reasonable safety measures and obtain a qualified technical opinion where needed. If a dispute is already active, communications should be factual and should not contain an improvised admission or an unsupported assurance. A remote owner should ensure that the local agent can attend quickly and preserve evidence in its original form.

The 2025 decision concerning the Unicil property also illustrates the evidential danger of relying on a tenant’s acceptance of the premises. In Cass. 3e civ., 16 October 2025, no. 24-16.682, the Court set aside a decision that had rejected tenants’ compensation claim by relying on contractual wording and the supposed limits of the owner’s repair responsibility. The Court required the legal obligations to be addressed directly and found that force majeure had not been established.

Owners should separate three questions in their records: what condition existed, what obligation applied and what loss is alleged. A tenant’s photographs can prove condition but not necessarily the full amount of loss. An invoice can prove expenditure but not necessarily that the work was necessary. A report can be technically useful but still require a discussion of access, causation and the period affected. Clear records help both sides and reduce the risk of a dispute being decided on incomplete assumptions.

The 2023 ruling adds another boundary. In Cass. 3e civ., 14 December 2023, no. 21-21.964, the Court distinguished premises subject to a residential lease from premises used for another purpose. A foreign owner who rents a property to a company, operates a furnished holiday business or permits professional use should not copy the analysis for a principal residence without checking the legal classification. Conversely, calling a home an office in a contract does not necessarily settle its real use.

Where the tenant has already complained, the owner should map the calendar: complaint date, inspection date, contractor quotation, proposed access dates, notice date, notice expiry, mediation or formal demand, and any court filing. This timeline can reveal whether works were genuinely planned or whether the notice was prepared first and justified later. It also allows the owner to identify urgent risks without confusing them with the separate question of whether the tenancy can end.

B. A practical checklist for a foreign owner before serving notice

Step one is to classify the works. Write a short technical description in plain language: repair of a leak, replacement of unsafe wiring, insulation, removal of an infestation, structural alteration, extension, conversion or complete refurbishment. State why occupation is said to be impossible and for how long. Avoid using a broad label such as “renovation” when the actual project contains several different operations with different legal implications.

Step two is to reconstruct knowledge at the date of the lease. Review the listing, viewing notes, inventory, diagnostic reports, emails and any works completed before signature. If the owner acquired the property shortly before letting it, review the acquisition file and information received from the seller, agent and notaire. The question is not limited to what the owner personally remembered. The relevant history may include information held by an agent or a company acting for the owner.

Step three is to check whether the home is currently usable and whether temporary measures are possible. Some works can be sequenced room by room. Others may require temporary relocation, but relocation is not automatically the same as termination. Discuss access, working hours, protection of belongings, dust and noise, insurance and responsibility for damage. If a tenant voluntarily agrees to a temporary arrangement, record it accurately and do not describe it as a surrender unless the legal document truly has that effect.

Step four is to select the legal route, not merely the commercial objective. The owner may be seeking a sale, personal recovery, a legitimate and serious ground, a negotiated departure or a court order for access or works. Each route has its own conditions. A notice based on the tenant’s breach requires evidence of that breach. A notice based on works requires evidence capable of showing the project and its legal seriousness. A desire to obtain a higher rent after refurbishment is not automatically a valid substitute for the statutory grounds.

Step five is to verify formalities and dates. Check the contractual end date, the notice period, the method of service, the mandatory information, protected situations and the precise wording of the reason. Do not rely on an English template found online. A notice can fail because it was late, served incorrectly, insufficiently explained or inconsistent with the evidence. A French-speaking professional should review the final notice and the proof that it was delivered.

Step six is to prepare for disagreement. Assemble a file containing the lease and amendments, inventory, diagnostics, photographs, technical reports, quotations, permits, insurance documents, communications, proof of service and a chronology. Keep original metadata where possible. Do not edit photographs or translate away the original French wording. An English summary is useful for the owner, but the underlying French document may be the decisive evidence.

Step seven is to maintain safe conduct after notice. Continue essential repairs and preserve peaceful enjoyment until the tenancy legally ends. Do not enter without respecting access rules. Do not threaten eviction, remove furniture or disconnect services. If there is an urgent danger, take proportionate protective action and obtain local assistance. A landlord who has a strong technical project can weaken that position by using unlawful pressure.

Step eight is to separate property law from tax and financing questions. Renovation costs, rental taxation, non-resident filing, insurance, mortgage covenants and capital expenditure can affect the project, but they do not determine whether the notice is valid. The tax consequences of an empty property or a temporary relocation should be checked separately with an adviser competent for the owner’s residence and the French property. This article does not provide a tax calculation.

Step nine is to consider negotiated solutions carefully. Mediation or a written agreement may resolve access, temporary relocation or an agreed departure. The document should identify the premises, dates, payments, works, keys, inventory, deposit and each party’s commitments. It should not be drafted as a casual email exchange where the parties use different meanings for “termination,” “suspension” or “vacant possession.” A negotiated solution must remain consistent with mandatory rules.

Step ten is to obtain advice early when the property is already known to be non-compliant. Waiting until the notice is challenged often means that the owner must defend the chronology under pressure. Early review can identify a repair route, a temporary accommodation issue, a need for expert evidence, a limitation problem or a defect in the planned notice. It can also prevent a non-resident owner from giving instructions that a local agent cannot lawfully implement.

Where the question concerns a wider French property transaction, ownership structure or dispute, the English-language French real-estate law practice page provides the appropriate point of contact. The present article remains focused on the residential lease and the specific works-and-decency issue.

The decisions discussed here provide a useful sequence. The 2026 notice case asks whether remedial works can be used as a legitimate and serious reason where the lack of decency was known at the beginning. The second 2026 case confirms the continuing nature of the decent-housing obligation and the three-year period relevant to past compensation. The October 2025 case rejects a simplistic reliance on acceptance clauses. The December 2023 case reminds practitioners to verify that the residential-lease rules actually apply. Together, they favour a documented, fact-specific approach rather than a standard notice formula.

Conclusion

A French landlord can in some circumstances plan substantial works and may, depending on the facts, have a lawful route to recover possession. But the 4 June 2026 ruling makes a critical distinction: a landlord should not use works intended to cure a lack of decency, known when the residential lease began, as an automatic justification for ending the lease and evicting the occupant. The property history and the landlord’s continuing obligations matter.

For foreign owners, the safest process is concrete. Classify the works, reconstruct what was known at signature, inspect and document the present condition, check whether occupation or temporary relocation is possible, select the correct legal route, verify dates and formalities, and keep complying with the lease while the position is assessed. The tenant’s possible claim for continuing compliance and compensation for the preceding three years should also be included in the risk analysis.

These principles do not predetermine a particular dispute. They provide a framework for reviewing the lease, evidence and proposed works before an irreversible step is taken. A tailored review of the French documents is appropriate where the dwelling is unfit, a notice has been served, access is disputed or court proceedings are contemplated.