Is it possible to evict a person from a house at the owner's request: the court named decisive circumstances

The Vyshhorod District Court of Kyiv region, in an open court session, considered a civil case filed by the owner of a residential house against several defendants regarding the removal of obstacles in the use and disposal of property by eviction.

The court evaluated the arguments concerning the legality of residing in the disputed dwelling and the lawfulness of interference with property rights.

Essence of the case

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding the removal of obstacles in the use of the residential house located in Kyiv region by evicting persons who, according to her, unlawfully moved into the house without proper legal grounds and continue to live there.

She stated that she did not give consent for these persons to reside, did not conclude any agreements with them, and was effectively deprived of access to the dwelling because the defendants changed the locks and made free use of the property impossible.

According to the case materials, the disputed residential house is located on a land plot initially owned by the defendant, and the construction of the object was carried out during his marriage to the plaintiff's mother.

Subsequently, the land plot was transferred to the plaintiff under a gift agreement, after which she registered ownership rights to the residential house as a completed real estate object.

The defendant opposed the claim, stating that the house was built by him over a long period with his own funds, and the move-in was lawful since he is the plaintiff's father and lives in the disputed house as his only actual residence.

Other defendants explained that they live in the house as relatives and family members, and their move-in occurred with the consent of one of the residing persons. They also referred to the absence of other housing and difficult life circumstances.

The court established that after the defendants moved in, the plaintiff's access to the house was limited, a prolonged conflict arose between the parties, and the dwelling is effectively used by persons opposing the owner's eviction demands.

Conclusions and court decision

Evaluating the case materials No. 363/2788/25, the court proceeded from the provisions of civil and housing legislation, as well as the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the protection of the right to housing.

The court noted that the owner of a residential house has the right to demand the removal of any obstacles in exercising their right to use and dispose of the property, including by evicting persons who do not have proper legal grounds for residence.

At the same time, the court emphasized that in cases where a person has actually lived in the dwelling for a long time and has stable ties to it, such housing may be considered a "home" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which requires an assessment of the proportionality of interference.

The court found that the defendant, who is the plaintiff's father, moved into the disputed house before the plaintiff registered ownership rights, and his residence is long-term and connected with the actual creation and use of this dwelling as a family home.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that evicting this person would constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for the home.

At the same time, regarding the other defendants, the court established that they moved into the residential house without the owner's consent and are not members of her family as defined by law. No evidence was provided of legal grounds for their residence in the disputed house.

The court also took into account that after their move-in, the owner was effectively deprived of access to her property, and the defendants continue to live in the house and refuse to leave.

Given this, the court concluded that these persons have unlawfully occupied the dwelling and there are grounds to protect the property right by evicting them.

The court partially satisfied the claim. To remove obstacles for the plaintiff in using and disposing of the residential house by evicting persons who do not have legal grounds to reside in it, without providing alternative housing. The rest of the claims were denied.

The decision may be appealed to the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

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