Evacuation lawsuit for repeated failure to pay the rent

Evacuation lawsuit for repeated failure to pay the rent
 The legal basis: Paragraph (b) of Article 18 of Law 190 of 1971 stipulated that: If the tenant is repeatedly abstaining or delaying payment of the due rent without justifications estimated by the court, he shall be sentenced to eviction or eviction, according to the circumstances.
 What is meant by repetition: it is the tenant’s failure to perform it by procrastinating in paying it in a previous substantive or urgent eviction lawsuit, and the delay is used again and again (time after time) in a way that proves his tendency to procrastinate, and his tendency to procrastinate, and his direction to the benefits of the lessor and then pay them before closing the pleading door (before a court The first degree or the Court of Appeal) or it was paid and the lessor accepted it in the session minutes of that, it is not considered a repetition, and if the court decides to cancel the lawsuit because the plaintiff did not attend and did not renew it on time, it is also not considered a repetition.
 Conditions for accepting a repeat suit:
1 - That the lessor had previously filed a lawsuit against the tenant for eviction or an urgent action for eviction for delay in paying the rent.
2 - That the lessee in this case (substantive or urgent evacuation) prevented the judgment against him to pay the owed rent, expenses and fees before closing the pleading.
3- It does not necessarily require the issuance of a final judgment in the previous lawsuit.
4- It is not necessary, prior to filing it, to assign the rent to the tenant, but it is a condition that he be present in the urgent case for the work of the nullified clause.
 The court must, before issuing its ruling in this case that is considering the eviction request for repetition, must verify the tenant’s abuse of this license by examining the availability of the eviction conditions in the previous substantive case, whether the mandate to pay the fee is correct or the existence of an undisputed fee in its amount ....... ......
 Unless there is a repetition of delay in paying the rent:
1- Fare Claims and Payment Orders,
2- The lessee pays the rent before filing the previous lawsuit or paying it before filing the next lawsuit (redundancy lawsuit),
3- Warnings are prepared with the assignment to fulfill the rent and the tenant to pay it according to the last assignment.
4- The tenant does not know the names of the heirs.
 Required documents: The original lease contract, an official copy of the previous ruling issued in the eviction case for non-payment of the rent.
 The court competent to hear the case:
Specific jurisdiction: is subject to the provision of general rules in the pleading law according to the value of the lawsuit, and since the eviction lawsuit is one of the disputes arising from the lease contract and the legislator has not specified for it in Articles 36, 37 pleadings are a specific method for assessing their value, and then they are considered among the cases of unknown value which are the jurisdiction of the first instance court Considering that its value exceeds forty thousand pounds, in accordance with Article 41 of the Procedure Law.
Local jurisdiction: It is the court in whose circuit the residence of the defendant is located, and if there is more than one defendant, the jurisdiction shall be the court in whose circuit the domicile of one of them is located. If the defendant does not have the domicile of the republic, the jurisdiction shall be to the court in whose district the residence of the defendant is located, pursuant to Article 49 of the Law of Procedures.
The eviction lawsuit for repetition does not require a warning or a mandate to fulfill it before filing the case:
 
It is not necessary for the lessor to charge him with fulfillment in the event of repetition of the delay and failure to pay the rent, as the assignment of fulfillment is a prerequisite for accepting the eviction lawsuit due to the delay in paying the rent.
(Appeal No. 2373 of 54 BC)
Is it proven that the fee is repeated if the first eviction lawsuit was canceled and no judgment was issued regarding it:
The decision - in the Court of Cassation - that the text of Article 18 of the Lease of Places Law 136 of 1981 indicates that for the case of recurrence to exist, the delay or omission must have been filed in respect of which a substantive eviction suit or an urgent eviction case in which the court investigates the tenant’s delay or failure to pay Fee owed by him already and not in dispute, and the payment of a ruling for eviction or the execution of an expedited ruling of expulsion is prevented. Therefore, the evidence of the state of redundancy mentioned in the text of the aforementioned article does not necessarily require the issuance of a final ruling on the subject matter of the previous lawsuit. That the tenant had previously delayed or abstained from paying the rent he was actually owed and was not in dispute over its amount, and that he had paid it together with the actual expenses and expenses in order to avoid the judgment of eviction.
Accordingly, the decision to dismiss the lawsuit, even if it does not exceed it, according to what Article 82 of the Procedure Law stipulates, a decision of the decisions ordered by the court and is not considered among the judgments, then it is achieved by repetition, except that in order to have this effect it is required that the court register before it The lawsuit shall be canceled out indicating that there is a rent owed by the tenant and that he has not contested it and that he avoided an inevitable judgment of eviction or eviction by paying the actual rent, expenses and expenses, and the lessor accepted them or offered him an offer that excuses his liability,
(Appeal No. 2022 for the year 70 BC, session 6 June 2012)

It is proven that the tenant has repeatedly refused or is late to pay the due rent, a final judgment is not necessarily required in the previous lawsuits, the result of which is the decision to cancel the case in which repetition is established. His condition is that the court registers before issuing its decision to write off the tenant’s decision to evacuate his payment of his owed rent, expenses and fees and their acceptance from The lessor, as a result, has received the delisting decision merely and that the papers and session minutes are empty of indicating that, not considering it a precedent for repetition, according to Appeal No. Filing eviction cases for repeated failure to pay the rent.

And according to what happened to the Court of Cassation, for the case of repetition, it is a condition that the delay or omission has been filed in respect of which a substantive eviction case or an expedited eviction lawsuit, in which one of them is investigated, is for the court to delay the tenant or his failure to pay the rent owed by him already and not dead 

We are in dispute about its amount or the conditions of its entitlement, but he was keen on issuing the judgment for eviction or the implementation of the urgent expulsion judgment by paying the owed wages, expenses and fees, as the word repetition is a language that means that the previous lawsuit or lawsuits are identical with the case in question, i.e., the eviction lawsuits for non-payment of wages and equal to that they have been filed In front of the ordinary court or the urgent judiciary, and then the fare claims and the payment orders for the due remuneration, the case of repetition is not fulfilled.
(Appeal No. 2950 of 57 Hearing 10 June 1993)
Is it permissible for the lessor to file an eviction lawsuit to repeat the failure to pay the rent for the one whose lease is extended, and the previous ruling to prevent eviction was issued against the predecessor to whom the contract was extended?
Decided in accordance with Article 18 of Law No. 136 of 1981 that repetition in failure or delay in paying the rent that necessitates the eviction judgment or an urgent action for eviction for failure of the tenant to pay the rent on time, and that the matter is settled by a final ruling that the lessor does not respond to his request for the tenant to pay the rent The late case during its consideration, but if he decides not to accept the case - for the failure to fulfill the obligation to fulfill it, its nullity, or not to hear it, if this requires the demise of the lawsuit procedures and all the effects resulting from its establishment, then the litigants return to the state in which they were before filing it as if it had never been filed and the judgment in it is not suitable to be taken Basically for the availability of a state of redundancy
(Appeal No. 408 of 68 BC, session of January 26, 2000)

 But if the person of the tenant who avoided eviction in payment differed in the previous ruling from the person of the tenant against whom the eviction lawsuit was filed for repetition, as if the first lawsuit in which the eviction was prevented by payment was filed against the original tenant and the latter dies and the contract is extended to his son and he refuses to pay, is the lessor entitled Evacuation request to repeat?
The Court of Cassation answered this question with the following ruling:
As the result of the provision of the eviction judgment for repetition in accordance with the text of Article 18 / B of Law No. 136 of 1981 was to be a restriction on the previous facilitation of the granting of the tenant to meet the judgment against him in the eviction lawsuit that the landlord institutes before him in accordance with the procedures specified in the text of this paragraph, the scope of this implementation The penalty is not achieved unless the same tenant repeats his abstention or delay in paying the rent after filing this lawsuit against him, since the principle in the penalty is that he personally join the person who committed the violation without any other person, and therefore the eviction lawsuit that was previously filed against the deceased tenant or leaving the leased place It is not reliable if the one to whom the lease contract was extended delays in fulfilling the rent after death or abandonment. It is not justified to say that the heirs from the general successor of the lessee are bound by what their inheritor is committed to because the succession is limited to the transfer of obligations and rights and the types of penalties that the legislator arrange for violating a person are outside this scope According to a ruling from the provisions of the law, the principle in it is that it is a personal one that is only attached to the person who committed the offense that leads to the penalty,
(Appeal No. 231 of 69 BC, hearing February 9, 2000)
Likewise, the lessor may not file the eviction lawsuit for repetition in the event that the previous ruling in which eviction was prevented was by payment if it was issued under the previous law.
The court must decide to evacuate even if the tenant has paid the late fee before the closing of the case when it is realized that he has repeated his abstention or inaction in the payment of the fee without a justification convinced of him. This ruling was mentioned later in Article 31/1 of Law 49 of 1977 and then in Article 18 B / of the current Law No. 136 of 1981, and these laws were to have immediate effect on the existing legal centers that continued until their entry into force and did not apply to centers that were established and ended before their implementation.
With the implication that the delay in paying the fee for which the case was instituted and the judgment was issued in it before the implementation of those laws that introduced repetition in the delay in the payment of the wage as one of the reasons for eviction are not carried out by the case of the positive repetition of the decision to evacuate and because the documents are proven that the previous delay in paying the fee has been The previous lawsuit was instituted on his behalf in 1965 and the judgment was issued on March 17, 1966, that is, before the implementation of Law 52 of 1969, and then this lawsuit is not considered among the cases of delay in which the element of repetition is available in the case of the current case and if the contested ruling contravenes this consideration and counted accordingly The ruling is flawed by the error in applying the law,
(Appeal No. 2418 of 69 BC, session of June 14, 2000)