A ruling by the **Court of Cassation** on June 4, 2026, clarified the rights of tenants and obligations of landlords in cases where property damage is caused by a natural disaster. The decision addressed a situation where a landlord could not indefinitely use the disaster as an excuse for not repairing a property once repairs became feasible. The case involved a villa rented by a company in a complex that operated as a tourist hotel. The property had been severely damaged by **Hurricane Irma**, and the tenant company stopped paying rent, blaming the landlord for delaying necessary repairs to resume operations. The landlord refused to renew the lease without compensation for eviction, citing unpaid rent, and sought to evict the tenant. The court of appeal had previously ruled against the tenant, stating that the damage was caused by a "fortuitous event"—a legal term meaning an unexpected, unavoidable occurrence—which relieved the landlord of liability and made her repair obligations inapplicable. However, the **Court of Cassation** rejected this reasoning, stating that the absence of liability for causing the disaster does not eliminate the landlord’s remaining obligations. According to Articles 1719 and 1720 of the **Civil Code**, the landlord must deliver the property, maintain it for its intended use, and perform necessary repairs, except those related to the lease itself. Article 1722 outlines the consequences of property destruction by a fortuitous event: total destruction leads to automatic termination of the lease, while partial destruction may allow the tenant to request a reduced rent or termination. The ruling emphasized that the key issue was the timeline of repairs. Immediately after a disaster, a landlord may genuinely be unable to intervene, but once the property becomes unsuitable for its intended use and the lease is not terminated, the tenant may claim an exception for non-performance during the period when the landlord is no longer prevented from fulfilling their obligations. The court outlined specific factors to consider before withholding rent, including the intended use of the property under the lease, the reasons the premises are unsuitable, the nature of the necessary repairs, any repair requests sent to the landlord and their responses, the date when obstacles to repairs were removed, and the period during which the premises remained unsuitable. Technical reports, inspections, and a timeline of communications can be crucial in these cases. The June 4, 2026 ruling did not automatically exempt the tenant from paying rent or grant a general relief from obligations linked to the cyclone. Instead, it sent the case back to another court of appeal to reassess the points that were overturned. The decision stressed that legal action, such as a payment order or eviction, requires prompt response. The validity of the non-performance exception must be evaluated before the dispute risks the company’s continued operations. For the landlord, proving the disaster was not enough; when the lease continues, they must justify the obstacles to repairs and the steps taken to restore the property to its usable condition. Legal sources include the **Court of Cassation**, 3rd civil chamber, June 4, 2026, No. 25-10.068, the **Civil Code**, and analyses from **Le Bouard Avocats**.