Urban leases

In this case, the protagonists are sometenants who lived in a house that wasauctioned because it had apending mortgage. When the new owner obtained the housing in the auction, the tenants used theright of pre-emption, a special right that some tenants have to stay with the housing instead of the buyer, as long as theymatch the conditions of the sale.

Although a judge recognized the right of these tenants to acquire the housing,it took them a while to be able to occupy it because the lessee (the auction winner) resisted giving them the house. The tenants then decided to requestcompensation for the damages suffered, since they had to continue paying rent elsewhere while they couldn't enter their home.

Initially, the courts stated that as long as the lesseedid not act in bad faith, was not obligated to pay compensation just for occupying the property while the judicial process was ongoing. However, upon appealing to the Supreme Court (TS), it clarifies the situation, stating that from the moment the judgment recognizing the right of first refusalis final(meaning it cannot be appealed), the previous owner must hand overthe property. If they refuse without justification, then there will indeed be a need to compensate the new owner(the preemptor) for any expenses incurred, such as renting another apartment. Finally, the TS

sentencesthe successful bidder to pay for the damages incurredfrom the moment the judgment became final until it was clear that they were refusing to hand over the property. In other words, the owner should not payfor the period during which they had legal possession, but shouldfrom the moment the court definitively stated that the house was to be handed over. since justice definitively said that the houseTenant era and still refused to deliver it.