Is it possible to validly enter into two tenancy agreements for the same property and thus collect rent twice? The Constitutional Court has upheld its previous case law.
Dual tenancy and its admissibility
The admissibility of so-called dual tenancy – that is, a situation where two valid tenancy agreements exist concurrently in respect of the same property – was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 13 September 2019, Ref. No. II. ÚS 4235/18. In that ruling, it unequivocally concluded that the mere existence of two tenancy agreements relating to the same property cannot justify the conclusion that the second of them is absolutely void, as such an interpretation would be contrary to the right to freedom of action under Article 2(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and to the principle of pacta sunt servanda (contracts must be honoured). It has now followed up on this conclusion with a ruling dated 15 April 2026, ref. no. II. ÚS 98/26, in which it addressed the question of whether a landlord’s demand for double rent is contrary to public policy.
Double rent and public policy
In the case under consideration, following the end of one tenant’s de facto occupation of the flat, the landlords let the flat to a new tenant whilst the tenancy agreement with the original tenant was still in force. The courts of all three instances correctly recognised that, in accordance with previous case-law, the existence of a dual tenancy does not affect the validity of either tenancy agreement, but they nevertheless characterised the demand for double rent as conduct contra bonos mores (Section 8 of the Civil Code) and, therefore, as a manifest abuse of rights.
The Constitutional Court described this approach as an arbitrary ‘shortcut’. The Civil Code expressly provides for the situation of dual tenancy in Section 2208(1), which stipulates that if a defect (including the use of the property by another tenant) completely prevents the use and enjoyment of the property, the tenant is entitled to the rights granted by law. It thus clearly follows from this provision that the legislature does not, in itself, regard dual tenancy as contrary to public policy.
The principle of due diligence and the tenant’s defence
Going beyond its previous case-law, the Constitutional Court emphasised that the provision of Section 2208 of the Civil Code respects the important principle that rights belong only to the vigilant (vigilantibus iura scripta sunt). A tenant who is prevented from using the flat because it is being occupied by another tenant must actively assert their rights under this provision, or, where applicable, their rights under the special provisions relating to residential leases (Sections 2265 and 2266) or commercial leases (Sections 2318 and 2319), i.e. the right to a waiver or reduction of rent, or the right to terminate the lease without notice. If the tenant fails to do so, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the tenant’s lack of action.
The exclusion of these rights of the tenant arising from defective performance is possible only in exceptional cases, provided further that
- (i) the tenant has waived such rights in writing;
- (ii) the tenancy does not concern a flat or a relationship with a consumer; and
- (iii) such an agreement is not contrary to public policy.
Source: Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 15 April 2026, Ref. No. II. ÚS 98/26
Author: Adam Dumský, Junior Associate, Real Estate and Construction, LYNX Czech Republic