Covid-19 and rents: HMC has to pay all outstanding rent

Covid-19 and holiday let rents: the Rennes Court of Appeal orders operator HMC to pay all outstanding rent.

A new ruling in favour of tourist accommodation landlords

In a judgment of 13 May 2026, the Rennes Court of Appeal overturned an interim order issued by the Quimper Judicial Court and ordered HMC, the operator of a holiday residence, to pay the landlords an advance payment corresponding to the full amount of rent unpaid during 2020 and 2021. This decision follows on from the now well-established case law concerning the consequences of the health crisis on commercial leases for holiday residences.

The case concerned several investors who owned properties in a holiday residence operated by HMC. Following the Covid-19 pandemic and government measures restricting travel, the operator had announced as early as July 2020 that it would pay only 50% of the rent due for the first half of 2020. The landlords then suffered rent deductions for several years which they considered unjustified.

After several unsuccessful attempts at amicable resolution, the owners served formal notice on HMC to pay the full amount of rent and charges still due before bringing the matter before the court for interim relief.

The interim judge’s refusal to order the operator to pay

At first instance, the judge in summary proceedings had refused to grant a provisional order for the unpaid rent. He had considered that the objections raised by HMC precluded the granting of a provisional order. However, he had awarded the landlords reimbursement of certain household waste collection charges for the years 2020 and 2021.

The landlords appealed against this decision, arguing that the arguments put forward by HMC were now contrary to established case law of the Court of Cassation and the courts of appeal. In their view, the rent remained due in full despite the health crisis, and no serious objection could justify the rejection of their claims.

They therefore claimed payment of rent arrears for each of their units, as well as damages for wrongful refusal to pay.

The operator’s arguments based on the health crisis

In an attempt to avoid paying rent, HMC argued that the government measures adopted during the pandemic had rendered the lease void. According to the operator, the temporary ban on hosting tourist guests had made it impossible to operate the residence normally, meaning that its obligation to pay rent should be suspended.

The company argued that travel restrictions and limitations on public access had had the same effect as an administrative closure. It also contended that the amounts claimed by the landlords remained open to question and that there was still serious dispute regarding the exact calculation of the sums due.

HMC therefore sought full confirmation of the order refusing any advance payment of rent.

The Court of Appeal rejects the theory of the cause of action having lapsed

The Rennes Court firmly dismissed the main argument put forward by the operator. It noted that the basis for the obligation to pay rent lies in the landlord making the premises available. However, the premises remained available to the tenant throughout the entire period in question.

The judges emphasised that the operator retained control of the premises at all times, including during periods when certain restrictions affected public access. The disruption cited by HMC did not result from a breach by the landlords but exclusively from the general measures decided by the public authorities to combat the epidemic.

The court also reiterated a fundamental principle regarding commercial leases: the landlord is not obliged to guarantee the marketability of the leased premises unless specifically stipulated in the contract. The economic difficulties faced by the operator due to the decline in tourist numbers cannot therefore be attributed to the landlords.

A provisional order to pay rent

Having dismissed HMC’s objections, the court noted that the landlords had produced the commercial leases, rent invoices and detailed summary tables enabling the sums due to be determined precisely. Conversely, the operator provided no accounting records or supporting documents capable of seriously calling these calculations into question.

The court therefore ruled that the obligation to pay was not seriously contestable within the meaning of Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ordered HMC to pay, on a provisional basis:

• €6,229.69 to a first landlord;
• €8,618.15 to a second;
• €7,553.25 to a couple of landlords;
• €6,229.60 to a fourth investor.

Statutory interest and its capitalisation are also awarded.

An important decision for investors

The court, however, upheld the dismissal of claims for damages for unreasonable resistance, finding that the landlords had failed to demonstrate either specific bad faith on the part of the operator or any loss distinct from the unpaid rent.

This ruling nevertheless constitutes another significant victory for owners of holiday residences. It confirms that operators can no longer successfully invoke the health crisis to justify unilateral rent withholdings several years after the events. Above all, the decision serves as a reminder that operational difficulties linked to Covid-19 do not call into question the tenant’s fundamental obligation to pay rent when the premises have remained at their disposal.