The Supreme Court (SC) has confirmed the right of a tenant to exercise the so-called "lease retraction" after the housing and garage she had rented were sold without anyone properly notifying her of that sale.

In this case, the tenant was not informed of the transfer of the properties, so, upon finding out, she decided to claim her right to buy them herself as allowed by the Urban Leases Act (ULA). Both the court and the Provincial Court ruled in her favor and allowed her to stay with the housing and garage paying the same price as the buying company paid.

The buying company appealed, arguing mainly three things: that the tenant had to provide the money (" deposit the price ") before even filing the lawsuit, that since several properties were sold together at the same time, she could not exercise the right of first refusal, and that she was no longer a tenant at the time of the sale. However, the Supreme Court did not accept any of these arguments.

According to the Supreme Court, first, it is not necessary to deposit the price before claiming the right of first refusal; it can be done after the judgment recognizing it. Second, only if the entire building is sold at once would the tenant lose their right, which was not the case here. And, third, it was verified that the plaintiff was indeed a tenant at the time of the sale.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court protects the tenant's right to exercise the right of first refusal in similar situations, as long as it is clear that the lease existed at the time of the sale and the legal exceptions do not apply.