In the first two articles of this mini-series, we focused on the suitability of a property for long-term and short-term rent, on practical issues and the landlord’s limitations when negotiating a lease agreement, and on matters connected with services and their billing. In this third part, we turn to an issue that is often overlooked by participants in a lease relationship – namely, the liability of the tenant and the liability of the landlord, especially in relation to the property itself and to any damage that may be caused to it.
The rental of residential premises under Act. No. 89/2012 Coll., of the Civil Code (hereinafter the “CC”) generally does not distinguish between the rental of an apartment or a house. These articles will follow the same approach. If a particular conclusion differs depending on whether the rental concerns an apartment or a family house, this will be explicitly stated in the text. Otherwise, the conclusions presented apply equally to both types of property.
The liability of the landlord for the property’s fitness for occupancy
In general, the landlord is obliged to make the apartment available to the tenant in a condition suitable for moving in and living (Section 2242 (1) CC). As to when a property is suitable for moving in and living, the Civil Code primarily leaves this to the contractual agreement of the parties. According to Section 2243 CC, an apartment or house is suitable for moving in if it corresponds to what was agreed in the contract. Only in the absence of any agreement does the law stipulate that a property is suitable for moving in and living if it is clean, in a condition usually considered good, and if the provision of essential services connected with or related to the use of the property is ensured.
It is therefore advisable that the lease agreement, or its annex, contain a detailed description of the property’s condition and specify whether it is equipped with appliances, furniture, etc. In particular, when it comes to accessories, the landlord must not forget the obligations set out in the general provisions of the Civil Code on leases – specifically Section 2206 (2) CC, which provides that the landlord shall hand over the thing to the tenant with everything necessary for its proper use. Naturally, the landlord must hand over the keys, but they should also not forget other items necessary for use. For example, if the landlord has user manuals for essential appliances, these should also be handed over, ideally with confirmation of this fact in the lease. It is also advisable to provide the tenant with the house rules or at least obtain the tenant’s written confirmation that they have familiarised themselves with them before the lease begins. In the case of a family house, the landlord should also instruct the tenant about the specific aspects of maintaining the property, garden, and other accessories.
By contrast, Section 2236 CC allows even non-residential premises (i.e. premises not designated for housing by a building approval decision) to be rented for living. Such a lease agreement is not invalid, but this fact cannot be to the detriment of the tenant. On the contrary, in such cases the tenant may invoke (substantial) defects of the premises due to the lack of proper approval. In other words, the parties may agree that, for housing purposes, the landlord will rent, for example, a garage, but the landlord is not relieved of the obligation to ensure habitable conditions, and certainly not of public-law obligations connected with the property’s use.
This rule will usually cause no interpretative problems when a landlord rents a fully equipped new-build where “everything works.” It becomes more complex if the landlord wishes to rent an apartment or house with a defect preventing or substantially hindering habitation. For example, an apartment with a balcony without railings, exposed electrical wiring, or missing doors between rooms. Here, private-law landlord liability toward the tenant intersects with public-law obligations.
The Civil Code addresses this in Section 2242 (2) CC, which allows the landlord and tenant to agree that a property that is not suitable for habitation will be handed over for habitation. This is a so-called “special-purpose apartment”. Such an agreement is valid only if special rights and obligations arising from the property’s special nature are also agreed, including how the necessary modifications will be made and at whose expense. Thus, a landlord may rent out an entirely uninhabitable property, provided it is agreed who will make it habitable and how. Otherwise, the landlord risks tenant claims for defects and public-law sanctions.
Not every defect qualifies as making a “special-purpose apartment”. The Explanatory Report to the Civil Code provides guidance as to when this is still “ordinary lease” – i.e. a property with defects not preventing ordinary use – and when it is a special-purpose apartment under Section 2242 (2) CC. According to the Report, a defect that prevents suitability for habitation is not something the landlord disclosed when concluding the lease. If the tenant inspected the property, or failed to do so without good reason despite being duly invited, they cannot later claim as a defect something that could and should have been discovered – unless the landlord acted grossly negligently or dishonestly.
The law does not specify the conditions further. There is no doubt that spaces degrading to human dignity cannot be rented for housing. Yet, it is not expressly prohibited to rent, for example, an apartment without sanitary facilities, provided the tenant agrees and is expressly warned in advance.
If the property is not suitable for habitation or does not correspond to the declared condition (i.e. defects), the tenant may refuse to move in (Section 2244 (1) CC). In such a case, the tenant does not owe rent while the defect persists. If the tenant does move in and the landlord failed to warn about the defect, the tenant is entitled to an appropriate rent reduction (Section 2245 CC). If, however, the tenant already knew about the defect before the lease was signed, these rights do not apply (Sectio 2244 (2) CC).
Landlords are therefore always advised to reflect every such defect explicitly in the lease, for example, by including a tenant declaration that they have inspected the property and accept it with its stated defects. For more substantial defects exposing the landlord also to public-law risks, the parties should always agree on how and by whom the property will be put into habitable condition.
Liability for the condition of the property during the lease
As mentioned in Part 1, the landlord’s basic obligation is to provide a property suitable for moving in and living, with suitability assessed primarily by the lease agreement. This obligation continues throughout the lease term where the landlord must maintain the property in a usable condition (Section 2257 (1) CC).
This may include construction modifications that could require the tenant to vacate temporarily (Section 2259 CC), as well as inspections (e.g. of electrical installations or lightning conductors) that do not hinder use.
If defects arise during the lease that the landlord must repair (e.g. structural defects), the landlord is obliged to fix them with the tenant’s cooperation. The tenant must immediately notify the landlord of any defect requiring urgent repair and must notify other defects without undue delay (Section 2264 CC). The tenant must also take necessary steps to prevent further damage.
The landlord must then repair reported defects without undue delay. If they fail to act, the tenant may repair them at the landlord’s expense (not for minor defects). If the tenant fails to notify in time, the landlord need not repair, and the tenant loses entitlement to reimbursement or rent reduction. Any tenant costs must be “justified,” i.e. necessary and proportionate to the circumstances. Costs clearly outside market standard or incurred wastefully need not be reimbursed.
If a defect or damage is caused by the tenant’s conduct (other than normal wear and tear), the landlord is not obliged to repair – liability lies with the tenant.
Mandatory maintenance and minor repairs
During the lease, the tenant must perform and pay for routine maintenance and minor repairs (Section 2257 (1) CC). Government Decree No. 308/2015 Coll.[1] (hereinafter the “GD”) clarifies these terms: e.g. painting, plaster repairs, wallpapering, cleaning floors and coverings, wall tiles, and unclogging drains up to vertical pipes (Section GD). It also sets financial limits – e.g. CZK 1,000 for unspecified repairs (Section 4 GD), and up to CZK 100 per m² of floor area per calendar year for all minor repairs combined.
Because the tenant is legally obliged to carry out such work, they are directly liable for damage resulting from a failure to do so – not the landlord. In practice, it is often disputed whether a defect or damage falls under landlord or tenant responsibility. Courts often assess this by balancing the tenant’s duty of prevention with the landlord’s duty to maintain habitability.
A good example is mould. One must distinguish whether mould arises from a technical defect (landlord’s liability) or from improper use by the tenant (tenant’s liability). Tenants are obliged not only to maintain and repair but also to use the property properly (Section 2255 (1) CC), which includes prevention – such as adequate ventilation and heating. A tenant failing to do so cannot claim rent reduction for mould. If the cause is unclear, courts usually order an expert opinion and may apportion liability.
Tenants may even be liable for damage that initially seems outside their control. For example, the Czech Supreme Court dealt with a case of a neighbour’s apartment being flooded due to a burst water valve under a tenant’s sink.[2] Although the Court eventually sided with the tenant, it explicitly stated that primary liability rests with the tenant – unless they prove they bore no fault, i.e. they did not neglect regular inspections and maintenance of valves.
This shows that if a tenant merely “passively uses” the property without performing basic maintenance, they may still be liable for damage (including to third-party property) due to neglect of preventive duties – even if they did not directly cause it. At first glance, such cases may appear to be landlord liability.
Landlords often include in lease agreements a requirement that tenants hold liability insurance. Although not legally enforceable, it is certainly in the landlord’s interest if the tenant is insured, reducing the risk of insolvency in case of substantial damage.
Conclusion
Both before and during the lease, landlords face many obligations and liabilities and should be prepared. They should always consider the property’s condition when concluding the lease and not only warn the tenant of defects but also address them explicitly in the contract. They should also evaluate and respond to newly discovered defects promptly and properly.
Landlords also face many further obligations at the lease’s end, especially regarding eviction. We will cover this in the final part of this mini-series for landlords renting residential properties.
For any questions concerning leases, liability for damage, or other areas of civil law, we are at your full disposal. Do not hesitate to contact us.
[1] Government Decree No. 308/2015 Coll., on the definition of the terms routine maintenance and minor repairs related to the use of an apartment.
[2] Judgement of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic of 27 March 2023, Case No. 25 Cdo 1999/2022.
Mgr. Ondřej Růžička, attorney at law – ruzicka@plegal.cz
Mgr. Karel Janeba, junior lawyer – janeba@plegal.cz
28. 8. 2025