Housing disputes are claims for recognition of persons who have lost the right to use residential premises from the state housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body in a private housing stock.
According to article 87 of the Law "On Housing Relations" (hereinafter referred to as the Law), recognition of a person who has lost the right to use a dwelling from the state housing stock or a dwelling rented by a local executive body in a private housing stock due to absence beyond the time limits set out in articles 85 and 86 of the Law is carried out at the request of the landlord or the tenant (sub-tenant), or members (former members) of his family. According to paragraph 1 of Article 85 of the Law, in the temporary absence of the employer or his family members, they retain a dwelling from the state housing stock for six months. A citizen may be recognized as having lost the right to use only in respect of the premises that he occupies under the lease agreement, and if he voluntarily left it. If the non-living is caused by objective reasons (inability to live due to conflicts with other family members, etc.), then there are no grounds for satisfying the claim.
Jurisdiction.
The dispute is about the right of residence, therefore, according to the requirements of Article 29 of the CPC, jurisdiction is at the location of the immovable property from which they are asking to be evicted.
Persons involved in the case.
The plaintiff is the owner of the residential premises represented by a state body – local executive bodies, whose powers include issues of formation, management and distribution of housing stock – akimat of the relevant city, district.
The defendant is a person who has received a dwelling for living under a lease agreement.
Features of proof.
The subject of the claim is non-living for disrespectful reasons of the defendant. The subject of the evidence includes the following facts: the conclusion of a lease agreement; the defendant's moving into the disputed dwelling in accordance with the procedure established by Law and actual residence in it; determining the circle of persons who have the right to use the dwelling; the defendant's departure for permanent residence to another place; the existence of circumstances that would prove the abandonment of the disputed dwelling by the tenant without valid reasons.
It is possible to move into a dwelling in accordance with article 22 (the owner moves into his family members' dwelling, the user moves into his minor children's dwelling provided to him by the owner, the other family members move in only with the consent of the owner), with article 56 (temporary tenants move into a dwelling in relation to housing and housing-building cooperatives), in accordance with Article 77 (to a dwelling from a communal housing stock or a dwelling, rented by a local executive body in a private housing stock on the basis of a lease agreement based on a decision of the housing commission of a state institution on the provision of housing), in accordance with Article 112 of the Law (in a dormitory) The law.
When satisfying a claim, it is necessary to correctly state the operative part of the decision, which should indicate individually defined features of the premises in respect of which the defendant is recognized as having lost the right of residence.
Example 1. The plaintiff is the akimat of the claims against S. et al. on recognizing them as having lost the right to use housing from the state housing stock – an apartment – motivated by the fact that on December 18, 2008, the apartment in communal ownership was provided to the defendants on a warrant for living. However, the defendants do not live in it, the apartment is abandoned. The court's decision satisfied the claim. The court's decision was changed by the decision of the court of appeal. Regarding the satisfaction of the claim for recognition of defendant S. as having lost the right to use the dwelling, the decision was canceled, and a new decision was made to dismiss the claim. By the decision of the supervisory instance, the decision of the appellate instance was changed, the court's decision was upheld. It follows from the case file that by a decree of the Akimat dated December 12, 2008, the S. family was allocated a studio apartment, which the defendants did not move into. From the inspection report and witness statements, it can be seen that the apartment has been empty for 7 years, partially glazed, plumbing and heating risers need to be repaired, and there is no coil. There are debts for maintenance and utilities. According to article 87 of the Law, recognition of a person who has lost the right to use a dwelling from the state housing stock or a dwelling rented by a local executive body in a private housing stock due to absence beyond the time limits set out in articles 85 and 86 of the Law is carried out at the request of the landlord or the tenant (sub-tenant) remaining in this room, or members (former members) of his family. According to paragraph 1 of Article 85 of the Law, in the temporary absence of the employer or his family members, they retain a dwelling from the state housing stock for six months. The court found that the defendants, the S. family, had not moved into the apartment since it was provided in 2008, and had not lived in the apartment for more than six months. The court did not establish the existence of grounds regulated by article 86 of the Law when citizens' housing is retained, and no applications were made to extend the period of preservation of this dwelling. Additionally, the data submitted to the court of appeal on the collection of documents by the defendants for the privatization of the apartment does not prove the unreasonableness of the conclusions of the court of first instance, which stated that the S. family there are no valid reasons provided by Law for the preservation of housing.
The list of documents attached to the application
In accordance with the requirements of Article 149 of the CPC, including documents confirming the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claims, which may include:
- title documents, extract from the legal cadastre in relation to real estate;
- technical data sheet;
- certificate of registered rights (encumbrances) on immovable property and its technical characteristics;
- the contract for the transfer of residential premises;- a copy of the act of non-residence, certified by the KSK;
- a copy of the acts of energy transmission and water supply companies;
- evidence of the defendants ' residence at another address , etc. (for example, information about the defendant's registration at the place of residence)
Laws to be applied in the consideration and resolution of cases, depending on the subject matter and grounds of the claim
The Constitution.
GK.
GPC.
Laws:
- "On housing relations";
- "On the administrative-territorial structure of the Republic of Kazakhstan";
- "On administrative procedures";
- "On local government and self-government in the Republic of Kazakhstan".
Regulatory decisions The Supreme Court:
- No. 3 dated April 20, 2006 "On the practice of Judicial Review of Disputes on the right to housing abandoned by the owner";
- dated December 24, 2010, No. 20 "On certain issues of application by Courts of the Norms of Chapter 27 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan";
- No. 9 dated July 18, 1997 "On the practice of Applying legislation on the Privatization of residential premises by Citizens"
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
