Store in judicial recovery with late rent may be evicted from shopping mall
Stores can be evicted from shopping malls if they fail to pay rent and contractual amounts, even if they are in judicial recovery. This was what judge Eudélcio Machado Fagundes, substitute in the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Goiás, decided when accepting the shopping center's appeal against a tenant who was in default.
After filing the eviction action proposed by the mall, the tenant filed a request for judicial recovery, which led the lower court judge to issue a decision suspending compliance with the eviction order. Unsatisfied, the shopping center appealed, claiming that there was a mistake in the single court.
Responsible for defending the shopping B2B Lead mall, lawyer Leonardo Honorato , from GMPR Advogados, cited the position of the Superior Court of Justice that the landlord cannot be penalized by judicial recovery, since he is not subject to it.
“It is not fair to impose on the condominium the maintenance of a closed store, for years, without receiving charges, just because the store owner is in judicial recovery, which he believes is not enough to prevent eviction. Furthermore, the eviction action is not subject to the judgment of the judicial recovery action, so it is not up to the magistrate conducting the eviction action to suspend its progress based on the recovery filing”, pointed out the lawyer.
The arguments were recognized by the judge. In his decision, Eudélcio Machado Fagundes stated that “the fact that the aggrieved company is in the process of judicial recovery, which, it should be noted, was not even accepted, in itself does not prevent the granting of the eviction provided for in the Lease Law , therefore, the suspension of the action is not justified”.
https://www.canaddata.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/B2B-Lead.jpg
He also considered that the risk of serious damage, which would be difficult or impossible to repair, had been proven, mainly due to the high amount owed, as well as the fact that it made it impossible for the owner to rent again, which, without a doubt, caused him enormous losses. Therefore, he accepted the mall's appeal to proceed with the eviction of the defaulting store owner.
頁:
[1]