Nexity Studéa : Lyon District Court overturns a notice of termination refusing to pay any eviction compensation.
A landmark case concerning student accommodation
In a judgment dated 28 May 2026, the Lyon Judicial Court handed down a ruling of particular significance for operators of student accommodation run under commercial leases. The court was hearing a dispute between Nexity Studéa and AB Wealth Real Estate, the owner of a unit in the “La Duchère” student residence in Lyon.
The commercial lease had been concluded on 6 January 2008, taking effect on 1 September 2008, in favour of Lamy Résidences, whose rights were subsequently acquired by Nexity Studéa. The premises in question were an apartment operated as part of the overall student accommodation business.
After acquiring the property at auction in December 2019, AB Wealth Real Estate served Nexity Studéa with a notice of termination without an offer of renewal and without compensation for eviction, effective from 30 June 2021. The landlord considered that the operator had no right to renewal as it was not operating a business in the property in question.
Challenging this analysis, Nexity Studéa brought the matter before the civil court seeking either the nullity of the notice of termination or, in the alternative, payment of eviction compensation.
The landlord’s strategy: denying the existence of a business
A distinction between subletting and the provision of services
AB Wealth Real Estate argued that Nexity Studéa was in fact carrying out two distinct activities.
According to the company, the first activity consisted of the simple subletting of furnished accommodation, an activity which did not in itself constitute a commercial activity protected by the status of commercial leases. The second activity corresponded to hotel-style services provided mainly in the communal areas of the residence.
The landlord considered that these two activities could be separated and that the termination of the lease for a flat did not actually affect the commercial activity carried out in the communal areas.
The alleged lack of a dedicated clientele
AB Wealth Real Estate also argued that Nexity Studéa did not have its own clientele.
According to this argument, the students were simply occupying residential accommodation and the ancillary services were neither systematic nor indispensable. The landlord further asserted that some owners let their flats directly, which would demonstrate the absence of a genuine business attached to each dwelling.
Based on this reasoning, it considered that the termination without renewal and without eviction compensation was entirely justified.
Nexity Studéa’s position
A single and indivisible commercial activity
Nexity Studéa strongly contested this analysis.
The operator argued that its activity could not be split between subletting and the provision of services. In its view, the business assets lay precisely in the overall operation of a student residence, comprising the provision of furnished accommodation and the provision of hotel-style services for students.
The company argued that the activity carried out in each of the rented units formed part of the operation of a single business entity benefiting from the protection afforded by commercial tenancy law.
A claim for the nullity of the notice of termination
Considering the grounds invoked by the landlord to be unfounded, Nexity Studéa sought the nullity of the notice of termination and the continuation of the commercial lease. In the alternative, it sought recognition of its right to compensation for eviction and the appointment of an expert to assess its loss.
The court’s reasoning
Recognition of a business
The court noted that it is settled case law that the activity of subletting accommodation accompanied by the provision of services constitutes a commercial activity falling within the scope of commercial leases.
The judges emphasised that what matters is not whether the services are actually used by each occupant, but that they are offered to the subtenants. The provision of services constitutes an essential element of the commercial activity.
The court therefore finds that Nexity Studéa’s business consists of the subletting of student accommodation combined with a permanent offer of hotel-style services.
The existence of a specific clientele
The judges also reject the argument based on the absence of a clientele.
They consider that the students who choose the accommodation operated by Nexity Studéa constitute the operator’s specific clientele. This clientele is directly linked to the overall offering provided by the company, including services that may be used at any time during the tenancy period.
The court further notes that the landlord has produced no credible evidence to show that the services would be offered to persons outside the subletting network operated by Nexity Studéa.
The invalidity of the notice of termination
Having recognised the existence of a business operated under the disputed lease, the court found that the ground cited in the notice of termination was incorrect. The refusal to pay eviction compensation was based solely on the assertion that no business was being operated on the leased premises. However, this assertion was deemed unfounded.
As Nexity Studéa had chosen to rely on the invalidity of the notice of termination rather than immediately claiming eviction compensation, the court declared the notice of termination issued on 30 December 2020 to be null and void and ruled that the commercial lease should continue.
The decision
The Lyon Judicial Court annulled the notice of termination issued by AB Wealth Real Estate, which offered neither renewal nor compensation for eviction, confirmed the continuation of the commercial lease, dismissed all of the landlord’s claims, and ordered the landlord to pay the costs as well as €1,800 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Practical implications of the decision
This judgment forms part of now well-established case law concerning student residences operated by Nexity Studéa. It confirms that an operator who sublets furnished accommodation offering hotel-style services operates a genuine business entity benefiting from the status of commercial leases. The landlord cannot therefore refuse to renew the lease or pay compensation for eviction on the grounds that no commercial activity is carried out in the accommodation in question.
(0.00 out of 5)