Eviction lawsuit for non-payment of fare

Eviction lawsuit for non-payment of fare
The legal basis: Paragraph (b) of Article No. 18 of Law 49 of 1977 amended by Law 136 of 1981 stipulated that: If the tenant does not fulfill the rent due within fifteen days from the date of his assignment to do so by a registered letter accompanied by acknowledgment of receipt without an envelope or an announcement By the hand of a report and not ruling for eviction if the tenant, before closing the door to pleading in the case, pays the rent and all the actual expenses and expenses incurred by the lessor.
When is the tenant considered late in paying the rent:
Article (27) Paragraph 1 of Law No. 49 of 1977, which the legislator has kept in the Lease of Places Law No. 136 of 1981 stipulates that: The specified fee and the like must be paid in full to the lessor in accordance with the provisions of this chapter at a date not later than the first week From the month for which he is due or at the date agreed upon in the contract ...
By implementing the text of this article, the legislator required the tenant to pay the rent monthly in advance and in the first week of the month of maturity, whether or not that was mentioned in the contract or not, as long as the contract did not include an agreement to the contrary, and by examining the text, we find that the legislator used a letter “or” to indicate the difference between the agreement contained in The contract or entitlement to the rent is in the first week of the month, and that the tenant must fulfill the rent and the like, and that delay in payment, even if part of it, will allow the lessor to demand eviction.
Required documents: The original lease contract specifying the leased place, a description and details, and the fare is fixed, the place and time for fulfilling it, the original warning of the assignment of payment.
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 way to assess 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 Procedures 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 a residence in the republic, the jurisdiction shall be the court in whose district the residence of the defendant is located, pursuant to Article 49 of the Procedure Code.
If it is proven by papers that the appellant relied on the application to vacate the apartment subject to the dispute on the recidivism of the respondent against the payment of the full owed rent and not for failure to pay a certain amount of it, which is necessary for the entitlement of a renewed fee for the respondent against during the course of the case, a new application in which it is not permissible to initiate Before the Court of Appeal, it is evidence in the case that obliges the court to look into it and the actions that affected it without a need for the appellant to assign the appellant against the payment of the fee that he has acquired in order to verify the burden of the assignment from a first instance to reach the order of the amount of the judicial litigation based on that delay and the lessor stuck to the eviction request Because of its cause. And when the appealed ruling contradicted this consideration and instituted a litigation rejecting the eviction lawsuit, provided that the contested tenant paid the rent owed for the period from / / 19 to / / 19, which did not include payment of the new rent until the pleading door was closed before the Court of Appeal on 25 / 11/1992, although the obligation to fulfill includes what is new from it for the months following the period mentioned in it, the judgment has made a mistake in applying the law.
(Appeal No. 412 of 63 BC session 10/1/1999)