Facts
The dispute opposes the tenant of a building, X., to the landlord, Y. The tenant has rented part of the building since 1973 to operate her school. The lease was renewed on April 5, 1991. The tenant informed the landlord several times, starting in October 1991, of the air conditioning problems in the rented premises. Despite these complaints, the landlord did not repair the air conditioning. On April 8, 1997, the tenant provided a detailed inventory of the air conditioning defects, which affected 24.49% of the rented surface. The tenant then asked the landlord for the restitution of 20% of the rent paid between October 1992 and November 1997, as well as a reduction in rent for the future. The landlord repaired the air conditioning during the summer of 1998.
The tenant seized the Cantonal Conciliation Commission, then the District Court, which partially admitted her claim. The landlord appealed, which was partially admitted by the Cantonal Court. The tenant filed an appeal in revision against this judgment, which was partially admitted by the Federal Court.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the criteria for calculating the proportion of rent reduction in case of a defect. It considered that the rent reduction must be proportional to the defect and is determined in relation to the value of the object without defect. The Federal Court also examined the legal nature of the claim for restitution of rent based on a defect in the rented property and concluded that it is of a contractual nature.
The Federal Court also addressed the issue of the prescription of claims for restitution of rent. It considered that the prescription…