Because of a tenant’s late payment, may a landlord single-handedly replace the locks on the property? The answer is (usually) no. Replacing locks is a form of forced eviction. This is only allowed if the court has so ruled. Moreover, an eviction requires the use of a bailiff. Yet in a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has left the door ajar. In certain cases, the landlord is allowed to intervene himself.
The case on which the Supreme Court ruled concerns the rental of business premises. The tenant had allowed arrears of five months to accumulate. The tenant then vacated the premises at the landlord’s request and returned the keys to the landlord. Thereafter, the landlord replaced the locks and notified the tenant that access would no longer be provided. Thereafter, the landlord initiated legal proceedings. The landlord claimed dissolution of the lease and payment of rent arrears.
The tenant raised a defense. The tenant believed that by replacing the locks, the landlord had acted unlawfully. The tenant called it willful conduct and claimed damages.
The judge ruled in favor of the landlord. Eventually, the case went to the Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court, replacing the locks was not an act of willfulness but an act of suspension. In other words, the cessation of the obligation to provide rental enjoyment. It is true that dissolution of this type of lease can only be pronounced by the court, but that does not mean, according to the Supreme Court, that a landlord may not suspend. That, according to the Supreme Court, is not an act of its own.
In short, a boost for the landlord in this case. The Supreme Court ruling also provides clarity to other landlords (and tenants) facing late payments. At the same time, as a landlord, it remains important not to take this type of action overnight. In the case in which the Supreme Court ruled, it was relevant that the tenant himself had left and returned the keys to the landlord. In such a case, the landlord may indeed act on his own and replace the locks. But whether that is also allowed if the tenant holds the keys, Supreme Court did not say.
Source : https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2024:389