If a renovation company carries out work on a property at the request of the tenant and does not obtain payment for the work carried out, it cannot take action against the owner of the apartment.
The only exception to this rule is when the owner gives explicit consent to the execution of the work.
This is what the third civil section of the Court of Cassation establishes with sentence no. 7627/2002.
In the case in question, an entrepreneur carried out renovation work on a property at the request of its tenant. Subsequently, however, the tenant went bankrupt and was therefore no longer able to pay the debt to the entrepreneur.
The latter then decided to sue the owners, demanding that they pay the sum relating to the modifications made to the property.
According to the entrepreneur, in fact, after the interventions carried out, the apartment would have increased in value, resulting in the owners' enrichment, without them having paid anything.
Based on this reasoning, therefore, in court, the entrepreneur underlined 'the enrichment of the other party without just cause', referring to article 2041.
The judges, including those of the Court of Cassation, however, rejected the request.
According to the latter, it was not possible to refer to this article, since the so-called unjust enrichment did not exist. This, in fact, existed and was clearly represented by the rental contract stipulated between the landlord and the tenant. The entrepreneur, therefore, could not take recourse against the owners, since the latter, despite not having paid a single euro, had obtained the increase in the value of the apartment in a completely lawful and recognized way.
source: Time House
Grimaldi Padua
Padua - 35137 - Via G. Matteotti, 27
e-mail: padovacentro@grimaldifranchising.it
Tel. +39 49 663 033 - VAT number 05301660287
Grimaldi Cadoneghe
Cadoneghe (PD) - 35010 - Via G. Franco, 2/A
e-mail: cadoneghe@grimaldifranchising.it
tel. +39 049 88 736 56 - VAT number 05322440289