Is it possible to evict a tenant due to property remodeling without the landlord's consent — Supreme Court's answer

The fact of remodeling leased property by the tenant without the landlord's consent, the advisability of which the landlord reasonably disputes, constitutes a material breach of the lease agreement within the meaning of Part 2 of Article 651 and Part 2 of Article 773 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and is sufficient grounds for termination of the agreement; the potential possibility of restoring the original condition of the real estate object does not exclude the qualification of such a violation as material. This conclusion was made by the Supreme Commercial Court of Ukraine on 29.04.2026 in case No. 908/2471/24.

The Supreme Commercial Court reviewed the cassation appeals of individual landlords regarding the plaintiffs' claim against the LLC (tenant) for termination of the non-residential lease agreement and eviction.

The dispute arose between co-owners of a non-residential premises and the tenant regarding early termination of the lease agreement and eviction of the latter from the leased property.

The plaintiffs stated that the tenant, without their consent, carried out reconstruction and major repairs of the leased property, namely, sealed existing window openings in the external wall of the building. According to the landlords, such actions contradicted the terms of the lease agreement and led to deterioration of the property and violation of their rights as owners.

The court of first instance concluded that the violation was material and satisfied the claim. The appellate commercial court overturned this decision and denied the claim.

COURT'S ASSESSMENT

The Supreme Commercial Court noted that according to Part 2 of Article 773 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the lessee is obliged to use the property according to its purpose and the terms of the agreement, and changing the condition of the leased object or carrying out its reconstruction without the landlord's consent constitutes a breach of contractual obligations.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the landlord had legitimate expectations to preserve their property and, upon expiration of the lease term, to receive it back in the same condition or in a condition agreed upon. However, due to the tenant's unauthorized remodeling of the disputed premises, the landlord is effectively unable to receive the expected condition at the time of contract conclusion.

Additionally, the cassation court emphasized that the tenant's actions regarding remodeling the leased premises without the landlord's consent contradict the landlord's will and effectively reduce the plaintiff's property, which justifies the landlord's need to file a claim. It was also noted that the tenant's argument about the courts of previous instances not determining the number of demolished partitions or the increase in the leased area does not refute the fact of a material breach of contract terms, nor the damage caused by remodeling real estate without the landlord's consent.

From the above, it follows that according to the current practice of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Part 2 of Article 651 and Part 2 of Article 773 of the Civil Code of Ukraine in legal relations related to the issue of grounds for terminating a lease agreement due to the tenant performing construction works on leased property without the landlord's consent, the mere fact of remodeling such property without the landlord's consent, the advisability of which the landlord reasonably disputes, indicates its use contrary to the terms of the agreement and violation of the landlord's rights by causing damage, which under the cited norms is sufficient grounds for termination of the agreement.

Thus, the mere potential possibility of restoring the original condition of the real estate object does not exclude the qualification of such a violation as material and does not negate the grounds for terminating the lease agreement.

The panel of judges emphasized that when deciding on terminating a lease agreement, it is necessary to assess not only the fact of material damage but also the nature of the violation and its impact on the property owner's rights.

According to clause 13.10 of DBN V.2.2-15:2019 "Residential buildings. Basic provisions," approved by the order of the Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine dated 26.03.2019 No. 87, the possibility of reconstructing residential buildings with superstructures and extensions involving dismantling existing and installing new floors, walls, and partitions, sealing existing and making new openings in load-bearing structures (foundations, walls, floors) must be confirmed by calculations of load-bearing capacity, stability, crack resistance, and deformability of all load-bearing structures and the building as a whole.

Therefore, the content of these requirements indicates that works involving sealing openings in the external wall of a building cannot be considered insignificant interference with the condition of the leased property, as they concern building elements capable of affecting its structural integrity. In the absence of proper confirmation of the possibility of performing such works in accordance with building codes, their execution objectively creates a risk of violating the technical condition not only of the individual premises but of the entire building.

The Supreme Commercial Court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that the fact that the defendant carried out construction works related to remodeling the leased property (sealing existing window openings in the external wall of the building along axis "B") without the landlords' consent, and reasonably disputed the advisability of such works, indicates damage caused to them and, accordingly, a material breach of the lease agreement terms, which is sufficient grounds for terminating the agreement and satisfying the derivative claim for eviction of the tenant from the leased premises.

As a result of the review, the cassation appeals were satisfied, the appellate court's ruling was canceled, and the first instance court's decision was upheld.

More details and the full text of the Supreme Commercial Court's ruling dated 29.04.2026 in case No. 908/2471/24 can be found at this link.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, Google News SUD.UA here, as well as our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay updated on the most important events.