Claim for non-obstruction. Decision of a case on a claim for non-obstruction in the use of residential premises and determination of the order of residence

An obstacle to the use of a dwelling or an obstacle to the use of a land plot is created, as a rule, after some kind of quarrel with neighbors, former friends, relatives. Many of these disputes occur due to the fact that neighbors in a residential building, especially if the residential premises are in shared ownership. Go there, don't go there, here I have my own path, but here is my door to the house, go and do your own. By creating obstacles, many rely on the fact that there are no tools to resolve such disputes and situations. They are wrong. Solution Tools controversial issues there is always. Another thing is to find such a tool correctly and apply it correctly.

Many of those who are faced with such a situation resolve the issue in court, which is most preferable.

Below is a court decision on resolving a dispute on non-obstruction in the use of a residential building, a utility block and a land plot between two shared owners of real estate. Ex-husband in every possible way created obstacles in the use of real estate for his ex-wife.

The main point for resolving a dispute in case of obstacles to the use of a residential building and a land plot is the evidence base in an attempt to resolve the issue peacefully, voluntarily and evidence of the created obstacle to use.

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

The Dmitrovsky City Court of Moscow considered a civil case in a dispute between plaintiff B.V.L. and defendant C.A.M. on non-obstruction in the use of a land plot, utility block and residential building

installed:

Plaintiff B.V.L. filed a lawsuit against the defendant C.A.M. on non-imposition of obstacles in the use of a land plot, a utility block and a residential building.

Plaintiff B.V.L. and defendant C.A.M. are co-owners of a land plot with cadastral number 50:04:хххх, located at the address: Moscow region, Dmitrovsky district, a utility block and a residential building located on the specified land. This immovable property belongs to each of the persons (the plaintiff and the defendant) on the right of ownership of 1/2 share each.

The plaintiff stated that she was deprived of the opportunity to use the property belonging to her by right of ownership, since the defendant prevents her from accessing this property, does not give keys to the gate and gate, and does not provide information about the use of the alarm system. In addition, the defendant lives in a common yard with the plaintiff, who freely move around the territory. The defendant refuses to exclude the free movement of dogs around the yard.

The representative of the plaintiff B.V.L. at the hearing claims supported in full, asked them to satisfy.

The representative of the defendant C.A.M. claims admitted partially, in terms of ensuring the safe location of the plaintiff on a land plot of 15 acres and the plaintiff's use of the house. At the same time, the defendant insists that the plaintiff B.V.L. I didn’t enter the house through the land owned by the defendant, since he wants to fence the land.

Requirements for the obligation to provide the keys to the plaintiff B.V.L. from the gate and gate defendant C.A.M. does not recognize, as he claims that on a plot of 15 acres there is neither a gate nor a gate. The requirements to provide information about the operation of the alarm system are also not recognized by the defendant, tk. the defendant claims that the alarm is turned off, he does not use it.

The court, after hearing the representatives of the parties, having examined the materials of this civil case, finds the claims justified and subject to satisfaction.

At the court session of the Dmitrovsky City Court of the Moscow Region, it was established that by the decision of the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow, which entered into force, the division of the jointly acquired property between the plaintiff B.V.L. and S.A.M.

By court decision for B.V.L. recognized the right of ownership to 1/2 share of the land plot, with a total area of 1500 sq.m, located at the address: Moscow region, Dmitrovsky district, for 1/2 share of the utility block, with a total area of 13.1 sq.m, with a canopy, area 11, 5 sq.m; for 1/2 share of a residential building at the address: Moscow region, Dmitrovsky district.

The right of ownership of the plaintiff B.V.L. for 1/2 share of the land plot and 1/2 share of a residential building is confirmed by certificates of state registration of rights.

On the basis of the same Golovinsky District Court of Moscow for C.A.M. also recognized the ownership of ½ share, a residential building and a utility block in ½ and a land plot located at the address: Moscow Region, Dmitrovsky District.

By virtue of Article 209 of the Civil Code Russian Federation The owner has the right to own, use and dispose of his property.

In accordance with Article 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, participants in shared ownership have equal rights to own, use and dispose of property in shared ownership.

In accordance with the evidence presented by the representative of the plaintiff in this civil case; explanations received during the meeting, the court found that the defendant in a civil case C.A.M. interferes with the plaintiff B.V.L. in the use of a land plot, a residential building and a utility block located on the specified land plot, which are held by the parties in the case (the plaintiff and the defendant), in shared ownership (in equal shares). Istice B.V.L. access to the land plot is closed, she does not have the opportunity to use a residential building and a utility block.

The defendant's representative does not dispute the fact that the plaintiff does not have free access to the residential building, since the specified residential building is located on a land plot with cadastral number No., with an area of 782 sq.m, owned by the defendant on the right of ownership.

In addition, the defendant C.A.M. explained to the court that a capital fence was installed around the entire perimeter of the site.

From the side of the street, the land plot is fenced with a wooden fence, there is a gate and a gate, however, the keys to the gate and the gate are defendant C.A.M. did not convey the truth.

At the same time, the defendant did not object to the plaintiff's use of his land, to the transfer of the keys to the plaintiff front door residential building. However, he objects to the passage of the plaintiff B.V.L. to a residential building and its land plot on its land plot.

At the hearing it was reliably established, and not disputed by the defendant, that the plaintiff B.V.L. does not have the opportunity to use a residential building that belongs to her on the right of shared ownership, a land plot and a utility block that also belongs to her on the right of shared ownership.

The materials of this civil case confirmed that the plaintiff B.V.L. offered the defendant to resolve this dispute amicably. The plaintiff sent a corresponding telegram to the defendant. In response, the plaintiff was denied.

Also, the plaintiff, in order to eliminate the violation of her owner's rights to real estate, applied to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Dmitrovsky district of the Moscow region.

Investigated by the court in this civil case, written evidence confirms the circumstances set out by the plaintiff in the statement of claim for repairing and creating obstacles by the defendant C.A.M. her, plaintiff B.V.L. in the use and possession of a residential building, a utility block and a land plot. The actions of the defendant C.A.M. are illegal.

The arguments of the defendant C.A.M. that a wooden fence, where there is a gate and a gate, is installed along the border of the land plot he owns. The defendant argued that the residential building is not located on a land plot of 1500 sq.m, the owner of 1/2 of which is the plaintiff, but on another land plot of 742 sq.m, with a different cadastral number, owned by the defendant .

The court does not question, and does not accept as a basis for refusal the plaintiff B.V.L. in the claim, since access to property in the form of a land plot, a residential building and a utility block, which is in equal share ownership, including plaintiff B.V.L., is possible only through a gate and a gate in the fence.

The defendant refuses to hand over the keys to the gate and the fence to the plaintiff. In addition, the court considers that the defendant C. A.M. is not deprived of the opportunity to apply to the court with an independent claim to determine the procedure for using a land plot, a residential building and a utility block in the event of a dispute.

It also follows from the materials of the civil case that a security and alarm system was installed in a residential building owned equally by the plaintiff and the defendant.

Installation and commissioning works were performed by Dom LLC under an agreement concluded with the defendant C.A.M. The residential building was placed by the defendant on centralized remote monitoring (guard).

In connection with the appeal of the plaintiff B.V.L. to a security company, the defendant suspended the contract and removed the object from centralized remote monitoring (security). These materials confirm that there is a burglar alarm in the residential building, the object - the residential building is not put under protection. However, the alarm was not dismantled, about the operation of this alarm, how to turn it on and off, the defendant C.A.M. plaintiff B.V.L., as a share owner of immovable property, was not acquainted.

The court at the meeting also established that in the area where the land plot, residential building and utility block are located, there are dogs belonging to the defendant C.A.M., which freely move around the territory, thereby excluding the safe use of the plaintiff B.V.L. we own real estate.

The fact of the presence of dogs and their free movement on the land by the defendant C.A.M. not challenged in court. This fact is also confirmed by photographs. wooden fence on which there is a sign with a warning inscription "Attention! The territory is guarded by dogs.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections, unless otherwise provided by federal law.

According to Article 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner may demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if these violations were not connected with deprivation of possession.

Under the circumstances of this civil case, on the basis of the above norms of the law, the court considers the claims of B.V.L. to satisfy. oblige the defendant C. A.M. don't fix the B.W.L. plaintiff obstacles in the use of a residential building, land plot and utility block.

oblige the defendant C.A.M. hand over to the plaintiff the keys to the gate and the gate, for the unimpeded passage and passage of B.V.L. to the land, residential building and hozblok.

oblige the defendant C.A.M. provide plaintiff B.V.L. information about the operation and use of a security alarm in a residential building, how to turn it on and off with the provision of appropriate technical means.

oblige the defendant C.A.M. to ensure the safe location of the plaintiff B.V.L. in the area of location of the said land, residential building and hozbloka by eliminating the free movement belonging to the defendant C.A.M. dogs.

Based on the above and guided by Article.Article.12, 209, 247, 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article.Article. 194-199 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

Suit B.V.L. to satisfy.

Oblige C.A.M. don't obstruct B.V.L. in use of a land plot with an area of 1500 sq.m, located at the address: Moscow region, Dmitrovsky district, utility block, residential building located at the address: Moscow region, Dmitrovsky district.

Oblige C.A.M. hand over to B.V.L. hand over the keys to the gate and gate, for unimpeded passage and passage of B.V.L. to a land plot with an area of 1500 sq.m, located at the address: Moscow region, Dmitrovsky district, utility block, residential building, and also oblige to provide information about the work and use of the installed in a residential building burglar alarm, methods of switching on and off with the provision of appropriate technical means, to ensure the safe location of B.V.L. in the zone of location of the specified land plot, utility block and residential building by excluding the free movement of those belonging to C. A.M. dogs.

Good afternoon!

The court, on the basis of the plaintiff's testimony, satisfied the claim for non-obstruction in the use of residential premises. The basis for satisfaction was the plaintiff's oral testimony: the defendant changed the locks in the apartment and did not issue new keys to the plaintiff.

Later, in testimony in another case, this plaintiff changed his oral testimony and stated in writing: the keys to the disputed apartment were available, were lost while in a state of prolonged drinking. I did not contact the defendants for the keys.

Questions: where in this case is the violated right of the plaintiff, which was restored by the court? Can the first decision be reversed? How, in this case, can you claim compensation for causal non-pecuniary damage to the defendant?

Small clarifications: the plaintiff has not lived in the apartment for more than 30 years, did not pay utility bills, removed all things more than 20 years ago and never had a separate room in this apartment.

Clarification of the client

Municipal apartment

400 price
question

issue resolved

Collapse

Litigation in a situation where the legal owner is not allowed into the premises is called claims for the removal of obstacles to the use of the premises. Sometimes such housing disputes also occur when there is uncertainty or a dispute regarding the ownership of housing - an apartment, a house or part of them. Such claims are often counter or in addition to other claims, such as the recognition of ownership of property by inheritance or the determination of the use of housing in shared ownership.

The legal basis for such claims is provided by the following standards:

Article 288 of the Civil Code says that exactly what the owner has the right to do in the residential premises - to own, use and dispose of the residential premises belonging to him in accordance with its purpose

Article 304 of the Civil Code - the point is that the owner has the right to demand the elimination of violations of his rights, even when they are not related to the formal deprivation of ownership of the property.

If the use of an apartment is carried out on the basis of social tenancy rights (municipal housing), members of the tenant's family have equal rights with him to use this premises. You need to refer to Article 69 of the Housing Code.

Legal grounds for using housing received in the order of refusal of privatization or donation with the condition of continuing residence can be found in Article 305 of the Civil Code.

Unsanitary maintenance of the premises and common areas by other owners, which does not allow other owners to fully be in it. Sometimes other housing users deliberately cause damage to neighbors, damage their personal property or the common property of the apartment - communications and structures

A citizen has the right to use the premises as a member of the tenant's family under a social tenancy agreement, while other tenants prevent him from being in the apartment - they change the locks of the front door, create an atmosphere unsuitable for living and put other obstacles to moving in

A similar problem is possible when a citizen has the right to lifelong use of housing as a result of refusing to privatize, inherit or donate real estate with the appropriate condition, but homeowners in every possible way prevent him from moving in and exercising his rights

All circumstances and arguments listed in the statement of claim for the elimination of obstacles to the use of residential premises should be confirmed by copies of documents, police / district police protocols or references to witness statements. If a circumstance cannot be confirmed by anything, it is desirable not to mention it at all. This may be, for example, information about the applicant's personal life that witnesses cannot confirm. The court will not take into account indications of them. Unsubstantiated emotional statements can form a negative impression of the plaintiff as a whole.

An article on preparing a lawsuit will be useful

SOLUTION

In the name of the Russian Federation

Installed:

DECIDED:

SOLUTION

In the name of the Russian Federation

On July 8, 2010, the Zyuzinsky District Court of Moscow, composed of the presiding judge Gribov D.The. with the participation of the parties, having considered at the hearing a civil case № 2-3151/ on the claim B.P.The. to B.T.V. and B.S.V. on the non-imposition of obstacles in the use of residential premises and the determination of shares in payment for residential premises

Installed:

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants with a request for non-obstruction in the use of residential premises located at: Moscow, st. d., sq. and determination of shares in utility bills. He motivates his claims by the fact that in the apartment No. house No. on the street. Moscow registered the plaintiff with minor children and the defendants. The relationship between the parties is of a conflict nature, in connection with which the keys to the apartment were taken away from the plaintiff, the locks were changed and they are prevented from living in the apartment. He is also unable to pay utility bills.

The representative of the plaintiff appeared at the court session, supported the claims, asked to satisfy the claim in full, explained that the parties are not members of one family, do not run a joint household, maintain a separate budget, conflict relations have developed between them.

The defendants, a third party, were notified of the date and time and place of the hearing at their last known place of residence.

GBU "IP Zyuzino" about the date, time and place of the hearing duly notified, the representative at the hearing did not send.

Taking into account the opinion of the representative of the plaintiff, the court considers it possible to consider the case in the absence of the parties who did not appear.

After listening to the plaintiff's explanations, examining the case materials, the court considers the claims justified and subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.

From the explanations of the plaintiff's representative, the documents submitted to the court, the court found that the disputed living quarters is a two-room apartment.

The specified apartment is the property of the city of Moscow and B.S.V (the tenant), his wife B.T.V., their son B.P.S., their daughter T.E.S., minor children of the plaintiff B are registered in it .E.P. and B.D.P., as well as the minor son of T.E.S.

In accordance with Art. 69 part 2 of the LC RF Members of the family of the tenant of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement have equal rights and obligations with the tenant. Members of the family of the tenant of a dwelling under a social tenancy agreement who have legal capacity and have been limited in their capacity to act shall be jointly and severally liable with the tenant for the obligations arising from the social tenancy agreement.

As follows from the explanations of the representative of the plaintiff, because of the existing conflict relations, the defendants do not let B.P.S. to the disputed living quarters, obstruct him in living in the apartment, do not give him the keys to the apartment.

On this fact, the plaintiff filed a statement with the police department for the Zyuzino district of Moscow.

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that the defendants violate the housing rights of the plaintiff, who cannot use the disputed residential premises due to obstruction by the defendants, lack of keys to the apartment.

Under such circumstances, the plaintiff's claims for non-obstruction in the use of residential premises are subject to satisfaction.

The court also finds justified the plaintiff's claims to determine the shares in the payment of utilities on the following grounds.

By virtue of Art. If a citizen has ceased to be a member of the family of the tenant of the dwelling under a social tenancy agreement, but continues to live in the occupied dwelling, he retains the same rights as the tenant and members of his family have. The specified citizen is independently responsible for his obligations arising from the relevant contract of social employment.

According to Art. 67 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the tenant of a dwelling under a social tenancy agreement is obliged to pay for the dwelling and utility bills in a timely manner.

As established in the court session and as follows from the materials of the case, the apartment is occupied under a social contract by B.S.V., B.T.V., their son B.P.S., their daughter T.K.S., minor children of the plaintiff B.E.P. and B.D.P., as well as the minor son of T.E.S.

Since the parties are no longer members of the same family, they have the right, by virtue of law, to independently answer for the obligations arising from the contract of social employment. The obligation of the tenant, that is, the plaintiff and the defendants, is to pay the rent. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to fulfill this obligation separately from the rest of the residents of the apartment. To fulfill this obligation, he must be issued a separate payment document. The amount of payment for the apartment and public Utilities By virtue of law, they are assumed to be equal for all persons using residential premises under a lease agreement. Therefore, the amount of payment for the plaintiff, taking into account his minor children, will be three-sevenths of the total amount of charges. The collection of fees for an apartment and utilities under social tenancy agreements is entrusted to the State Budgetary Institution "IS of the Zyuzino District", which issues payment documents. On the basis of the foregoing, the court concludes that the claim is subject to satisfaction and the collection of utility payments should be made from the plaintiff in the amount of 3/7 of the share, from the defendants 4/7 of the share.

Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. Art. 194-198 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation,

DECIDED:

Claims B.P.S. to satisfy.

Oblige B.S.V. and B.T.W. don't obstruct B.P.S. in use of apartment No., located at the address: Moscow, st., d.

Oblige B.S.V., B.T.V. issue B.P.S. a set of keys to the apartment.

Oblige GBU "IS Zyuzino" to issue B.P.S. taking into account his minor children, a payment document for paying for housing in the amount of 3/7 of the share of payments due.

Oblige GBU “IS Zyuzino” to issue B.S.V, B.T.V. taking into account their family members, a payment document for paying for housing in the amount of 4/7 of the share of payments due.

The decision can be appealed to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow City Court through the Zyuzinsky District Court of Moscow within 10 days.

(1 ratings, average: 5,00 out of 5)

The need for drafting statement of claim on non-imposition of obstacles in the use of residential premises arises when a dispute arises between several citizens regarding the operation of premises, which can be considered common living space. So, for example, if one of the tenants of a dwelling does not want the other to live in it (common apartment, room or house).

In what cases should you apply?

Rules and grounds for filing a claim for non-obstruction in the use of residential premises governed by the Constitution and Housing Code Russian Federation.

The need to draw up a statement of claim for non-obstruction in the use of residential premises arises in situations when between several citizens(for example, former spouses who own common apartment) there is a conflict regarding the use of housing(apartment, room, house), which can rightfully be considered common.

In this case, the second tenant, who is hindered in the use of a residential immovable object, has no choice but to go to court in order to defend his housing rights.

Filing a claim for non-obstruction in the use of residential premises is carried out in one of the following instances:

territorial district court;
territorial city federal court.

As for the territorial jurisdiction of the case, the address for filing a claim depends on the location of the object of the dispute (apartment, house, room). This requirement is regulated by Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. So, for example, if an apartment that several residents cannot share at once is located in the Leninsky district, the statement of claim is filed with the territorial division of the district court of the Leninsky district.

See the next section for information on how to make such a statement.

How to compose and sample

When drawing up a petition, the following features of the document structure should be observed:

The “header” of the document indicates the full name of the court in which the claim is filed (name, city, index, address of the exact location), the details of the plaintiff (full name, address of residence, city index, name of the subject of the Russian Federation, contact phone number), details of the defendant (full name , address of residence, city index, name of the subject of the Russian Federation, contact phone number);
Document's name - " Statement of claim for moving into a dwelling and not obstructing the use of a dwelling;
In the main part of the document, the plaintiff describes the essence of the situation that has arisen. First of all, the object of the dispute that has arisen is described (for example, an apartment), to which he has a legal right to use (this fact is confirmed by the listing of relevant legislative references and the availability of title documents.

Info

Documents confirming the tenant's right to the legal use of residential premises can be considered: a lease agreement, an order, a certificate of ownership, certificate No. 9, etc.

The following describes the position of the defendant, aimed at preventing the use of common living space. For example, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendant changed the door locks. It is important to write down the details here: when this happened (exact date), as well as the presence of evidence confirming that the locks were actually changed.

It would not be superfluous to prescribe how the plaintiff tried to resolve the situation before going to court. Recordings of conversations with the defendant, testimonies of witnesses and other materials can be supporting materials for an attempt at a peaceful settlement.

Info

If there are witnesses in the case, in the descriptive part, it is required to indicate their exact details: full name, as well as the address of residence, to which the court will send a summons to appear in court to testify.

Next comes a part of the legislative reinforcement set out in the main part. Here one should refer to the relevant norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, articles of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation;
In terms of making demands, it is necessary to indicate a petition for the plaintiff to move into a dwelling, access to which was illegally restricted by the defendant. Here it is required to register the exact address of the dwelling again;
In the "Appendices" part, you should indicate the list of documents attached to the claim, confirming all the facts and circumstances listed by the plaintiff. Such materials can be: a photocopy of the statement of claim itself, a receipt for payment of the state fee, photocopies of title documents for residential premises (social tenancy agreement, warrant, certificate of ownership) and others Additional materials on business;
At the very end, the exact date of filing the claim is affixed, as well as the plaintiff's personal signature with a transcript.

Criminal Lawyer. Experience in this field since 2006.

Housing disputes are an age-old issue that has not subsided for many years. Often there are cases of refusals to move tenants into an apartment in which they have a residence permit or a share. How to act in such cases, what to do in the first place and whom to contact - you can learn from this article.

Elimination of conflicts by peaceful means is almost excluded in such cases, because often the conflict arises at the very beginning. There are two situations: when they do not let the owner in and when they do not let in a person who has a residence permit in a particular house.

For those who are not allowed in their own apartment

These situations are less common, but they do happen. The reasons are always different. After the occurrence of such a situation, a citizen whose rights have been violated must sue. For residential apartments with two or three living rooms, the outcome is obvious - the court will oblige the person living in this apartment to give up the room to the newcomer.
Situations in which the disputed apartment contains only one room, the judge may oblige not to violate the rights of the second owner, but cannot determine the order of living in one apartment.

Controversial apartments are often a place of conflict

For those who are not allowed into the apartment by registration

This situation most often occurs with residents of social apartments. This is when a registered person did not live in it for a long time, and then abruptly decided to exercise his right. Those currently living, of course, are against this and can file a counterclaim to recognize this tenant as having lost their right to this living space. An example of the circumstances by which defendants can implement their move:

the former tenant independently and of his own free will previously left the apartment;
absence of a citizen long time without good reason (more than 1 year);
during his absence, the citizen has never invested energy and money in the maintenance of housing (did not pay a communal apartment).

If the defendants prove at least one of these circumstances, then this can significantly affect the outcome of the case, and the statement of claim on determining the procedure for using the residential premises will most likely be accepted in favor of the current tenants.
It is important for a defendant filing a counterclaim to carefully acquire, prepare all of the evidence, and clearly articulate their claims. If the claim has a good evidence base, then the judge will side with the defendant.

Tenant conflicts

Additional Information! People who have gone through such a process recommend hiring an experienced lawyer.

What should a citizen whose rights are violated do?

First of all, if a citizen is prevented from being in an apartment, this situation must be recorded for further presentation as evidence. It can be done:

Calling an authorized precinct squad.
Calling the Ministry of Emergency Situations.
Invitations of the house manager to draw up the relevant act.
Invite neighbors who will be able to testify in the future.
Send a formal request to the current tenants to be admitted into the house by registered mail or mail.

After that, you need to contact the police department at the location of the apartment. A statement is drawn up there, in which it will be necessary to indicate the whole picture of the conflict:

The address of the property in dispute.
Dates and times of all attempts to gain access to housing.
All passport details of current tenants who are not allowed into the house. Be sure to indicate their rights to this apartment.
It should indicate all the specific actions that were done by the tenants. These include changing locks, refusing to open doors, throwing away the applicant's personal belongings, and the like.
If the previous paragraph has witnesses, then you will need to indicate their full name and contact details.
Any other data that may be relevant to the consideration of the case.

Important! After submitting an application, employees are required to issue a certificate of acceptance of the application. It contains the date of acceptance, the number of the application, the full name of the applicant and the seal of the department.

All evidence and facts indicated in the application must be attached to such a statement. Be sure to copy the document that gives the right to this room, and a copy of the passport.

Contacting the police first

Unfortunately, police officers are not entitled to make decisions and in any way, except for conversation and verbal warnings, influence violators. This is because this type of case has the jurisdiction of the district court as a civil law case, and not a criminal one. But still, calling the police is very important, since they impartially record all the circumstances, collect evidence from all participants in the events (this will be very important material for further appeal to the court).

Claim for moving in and not obstructing the use of residential premises

Correctly formulated requirements are half the success in business. In the case, you can state the following:

requirements to oblige the defendant to eliminate the actions preventing the move in, to issue the keys;
urge the defendant to let the plaintiff in;
a petition to establish in court the rules for the use of joint residential property.

Sample claim for entry and non-obstruction

The plaintiff will need to prove the precedent of the violation, which includes:

blocking access to conflict housing by changing locks or refusing to issue new ones;
The plaintiff made all sorts of attempts to move in, but the defendant rejected them all.

Second in importance should be the provision of all available evidence. These include:

All materials that were recorded by the police at the time of the call to the scene.
An act drawn up by the manager of the house.
Any photos and videos from the scene.
Witness's testimonies.
Any other documents that will confirm the validity of the requirements.

As mentioned above, the application will need to be submitted to the district court. It is not necessary to choose which one, but to submit to the one whose scope is tied to the place of residence of the defendant. It is illegal to send a claim to the location of the apartment and, most likely, it will be rejected. After that, all kinds of documents and certificates are attached to the application, as well as a check for payment of the state duty. For such cases, there is a fixed rate of 350 rubles* per claim. This means that with several requirements prescribed, you need to pay several times more. In the application, it is possible to demand a division of payment or a full refund of the state duty to the plaintiff.

Paying for a lawsuit

It is important for every victim to know

Based on the RF RK, after the occurrence conflict situation the citizen has three years to file a claim. But the amendment is specifically for situations related to conflicts about preventing entry, these issues are considered ongoing and after a three-year period they cannot refuse to accept a claim.

Unfortunately, such conflicts are not uncommon, but with right order action to demand the exercise of their rights is possible. It is best to hire experienced lawyers in such cases.

*Amounts are current for 2018.

Federal regulatory legal acts

Civil Code of the Russian Federation

- Art. 20 "Citizen's place of residence"

- Art. 246 "Disposal of property in shared ownership"

- Art. 247 "Possession and use of property in shared ownership"

- Art. 249 "Expenses for the maintenance of property in shared ownership"

- Art. 253 "Possession, use and disposal of property in common ownership"

- Art. 292 "Rights of family members of homeowners"

- Art. 304 "Protection of the rights of the owner from violations not related to deprivation of possession"

- Art. 677 "Employer and citizens permanently residing with him"

- Art. 679 "Movement of citizens permanently residing with the employer"

- Art. 208 "Claims to which the limitation period does not apply"

- Art. 209 "Content of Ownership"

- Art. 235 "Grounds for termination of ownership"

- Art. 244 "The concept and grounds for the emergence of common property"

- Art. 288 "Ownership of residential premises"

- Art. 678 "Obligations of the tenant of residential premises"

- Art. 682 "Payment for housing"

Housing Code of the Russian Federation

- Art. 3 "The inviolability of the home and the inadmissibility of its arbitrary deprivation"

- Art. 30 "Rights and obligations of owners of residential premises"

- Art. 31 "Rights and obligations of citizens living together with the owner in the residential premises belonging to him"

- Art. 35 "Eviction of a citizen whose right to use residential premises has been terminated or who violates the rules for using residential premises"

- Art. 61 "Use of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement"

- Art. 67 "Rights and obligations of a tenant of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement"

- Art. 68 "Responsibility of the employer under a social contract of employment"

- Art. 69 "Rights and obligations of family members of the tenant of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement"

- Art. 70 "The right of the tenant to move into the residential premises occupied by him under a social contract of employment of other citizens as members of his family"

- Art. 71 "Rights and obligations of temporarily absent tenants of residential premises under a social contract of employment and members of his family"

- Art. 50 "The norm for the provision and accounting norm for the area of \u200b\u200bthe dwelling"

- Art. 60 "Social tenancy agreement"

- Art. 82 "Change of the contract of social tenancy of premises"

- Art. 83 "Cancellation and termination of the social tenancy agreement"

- Art. 153 "Obligation to pay for housing and utilities"

- Art. 155 "Payment of payment for housing and utilities"

- Art. 158 "Expenses of owners of premises in an apartment building"

Federal jurisprudence

An action for the elimination of violations of the right, not related to the deprivation of possession, is subject to satisfaction if the plaintiff proves that the actions of the defendant violate his right to property or right to legal possession. Satisfying such a claim, the court has the right both to prohibit the defendant from performing certain actions and to oblige the defendant to eliminate the consequences of the violation of the plaintiff's rights.

(Items 45, 47 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 10, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation N 22 dated April 29, 2010 "On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other proprietary rights.")

The impossibility of dividing property in shared ownership in kind or separating a share from it does not deprive the owners of the right to demand that the procedure for using this property be determined, unless this procedure is established by agreement of the parties. In this case, the court takes into account the actual procedure for using the residential premises, which may not correspond to the shares of the owners.

(Paragraph 37 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 6, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation N 8 of 07/01/1996 "On some issues related to the application of part one of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation".)

The Housing Code of the Russian Federation does not contain norms on the right of a family member of a tenant of residential premises to demand that the landlord change the social tenancy agreement by concluding a separate social tenancy agreement with him.

(Item 31 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 02.07.2009 N 14 "On some issues that have arisen in judicial practice in the application of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation".)

In the temporary absence of the tenant of the dwelling or members of his family, they retain all rights and obligations under the social tenancy agreement of the dwelling. If the absence of these persons in the residential premises is of a permanent nature, interested persons have the right to demand that they be recognized as having lost their right to housing. At the same time, the court finds out for what reason and for how long the person is absent from the residential premises, whether his departure is of a forced nature, whether he was prevented from using the residential premises.

(Paragraph 32 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 2, 2009 N 14 "On some issues that have arisen in judicial practice in the application of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation".)

Practice of the Moscow City Court

The long absence of the plaintiff in the disputed premises and non-participation in its maintenance is considered as one of the grounds for dismissing the claim.

Considering the complaint of lower courts, the Presidium of the Moscow City Court pointed out that when deciding on claims for non-obstruction in the use of residential premises, the courts should pay attention to how long the plaintiff lived in the disputed premises, whether his personal belongings remained there, whether he participated in housing maintenance costs. In the absence of a positive answer to these questions, there is reason to believe that the plaintiff's registration in the disputed premises was fictitious. In addition, the long-term absence of the plaintiff's interest in the disputed residential premises may also indicate the plaintiff's lack of interest in moving in.

(Resolution of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court dated April 26, 2013 in case No. 44g-33.)

The current housing legislation does not provide for the possibility of determining the procedure for using residential premises occupied on the basis of social employment.

The court has the right to determine the procedure for using only residential premises owned by citizens, while establishing the procedure for using municipal housing is not provided for by law.

(Determination of the Moscow City Court of 05/07/2014 N 4g / 4-4424.)

The fact that the plaintiff has a serious illness is not grounds for restricting his rights to use the disputed residential premises.

(Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated November 12, 2013 in case No. 11-32323.)

The defendant's arguments that the plaintiff's residence creates conflict relations in the family cannot serve as grounds for refusing to satisfy the claims for moving in.

(Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated November 8, 2013 in case No. 11-33900.)

The acquisition of shares in the ownership of an apartment, in accordance with the requirements of the current legislation, does not give an unconditional right to move into a dwelling and does not in itself entail the emergence of the right to use this premises.

(Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated October 22, 2013 in case No. 11-35176.)

Briefly about the important

Claim.

Main:

- on moving into a dwelling;

- on the obligation of the defendant not to obstruct the plaintiff in the use of residential premises.

Additional:

- on determining the procedure for using residential premises (only in relation to residential premises owned);

- on the obligation to issue the keys to the disputed residential premises.

- The defendants in this category of disputes are citizens who, in the opinion of the plaintiff, prevent him from moving into a dwelling and using this dwelling for its intended purpose.

- In this category of disputes, the likelihood of the defendant going to court with a counterclaim is high. As a rule, counterclaims come down to the recognition of the plaintiff as having lost the right to use the residential premises and his eviction from the residential premises. In support of a counterclaim, arguments are usually given that the plaintiff voluntarily left the premises, does not pay for its maintenance, did not attempt to move in for a long time (that is, he is not interested in living in the disputed premises) (for example, the Ruling of the Moscow City Court dated 14.05. 2014 N 4g / 4-4670, Determination of the Moscow City Court of 04/01/2014 N 4g / 5-1922 / 2014).

- Housing legal relations are ongoing, and by virtue of Art. 208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the statute of limitations does not apply to requirements for moving in and not obstructing the use of residential premises.

- Often, citizens who were previously forced to leave the disputed premises not of their own free will, but as a result of a conflict, unacceptable living conditions, etc. apply to the court with claims under consideration. Along with the presentation of relevant evidence, it is also worth paying the attention of the court to paragraph 32 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 2, 2009 N 14. According to this explanation, in the event of a temporary absence of the tenant of the residential premises or members of his family, they retain all rights and obligations under the contract social recruitment. Accordingly, when resolving the issue of the tenant’s right to move in (or rather, establishing whether he has lost the right to use the disputed premises), the court must find out and take into account when making a decision whether the tenant’s departure was forced or voluntary (Rulings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 03.12. 2013 N 18-KG13-119, dated March 13, 2012 N 5-B11-126).

- By general rule(Clause 4, Article 31 of the LC RF) in the event of termination family relations with the owner of the residential premises, the right to use this premises is not reserved for the former family member of the owner, unless otherwise established by agreement between them. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that if a former member of the owner's family has no grounds for acquiring the right to use the owner's residential premises, and his property status does not allow him to provide himself with other housing, he may be retained the right to use the premises for a certain period, owned by a former relative. Such a decision is made by the court (for example, the Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated February 12, 2013 in case No. 11-401, the Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated November 6, 2013 in case No. 11-34026).

- If an agreement on the procedure for using the residential premises between the co-owners has not been reached, satisfaction of the requirement of one of the owners to move into the apartment and not obstruct the use of it is possible only if the court determines the procedure for using the residential premises and provides each of the owners with the use of a part of the residential premises commensurate with its share in the ownership of the property. Therefore, along with the requirement to move in and not obstruct the use of residential premises, it is also advisable to declare a requirement to determine the procedure for using this premises (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 03.12.2013 N 4-KG13-32).

- It must be borne in mind that the requirement to determine the procedure for using residential premises should be presented only in cases where such premises are owned. The law does not provide for the possibility of determining the procedure for using the premises provided on the basis of a social tenancy agreement (for example, Ruling of the Moscow City Court dated August 30, 2013 N 4g / 1-8888).

- It is extremely unlikely that the claim will be satisfied in cases where the plaintiff is obviously not interested in moving into the disputed residential premises. For example, in a situation where the plaintiff has acquired a negligible interest in the ownership of small apartment and requires moving into the area belonging to him, the court will most likely refuse to satisfy his requirements, since this is obviously impracticable in practice and with a high degree of probability will lead to further development of the conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant (for example, the Ruling of the Moscow City Court of 05/30/2013 No. 4g/3-5240/13).

- On the contrary, in cases where the plaintiff's share in the property is large enough, and the disputed living quarters allow the plaintiff and the defendant to live together, it is advisable to demand moving in, as well as determining the procedure for using the living quarters (for example, Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03.12.2013 N 4- KG13-32).

- If the requirement to move in and not obstruct is presented by a former family member of the tenant of the residential premises, the judge's attention should be drawn to Part 4 of Art. 69 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, according to which, if a citizen has ceased to be a member of the tenant's family under a social tenancy agreement, but continues to live in the occupied dwelling, he retains the same rights as the tenant and members of his family have (for example, Cassation ruling of the Moscow City Court dated April 22, 2014 N 4g / 2-3738 / 14).

- As for the termination of family relations with the owner of the residential premises, then, as a general rule (clause 4, article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation), in this case, this premises is not retained by the former family member of the owner, unless otherwise established by agreement between them. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that if a former member of the owner's family has no grounds for acquiring the right to use the owner's residential premises, and his property status does not allow him to provide himself with other housing, he may be retained the right to use the premises for a certain period, owned by a former relative. This decision is made by the court.

- If the plaintiff did not live in the disputed premises only temporarily, it is recommended to draw the attention of the court to Art. 71 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the temporary absence of a tenant of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, any of his family members living with him or all of these citizens does not entail a change in their rights and obligations under a social tenancy agreement.

To make a decision in favor of the plaintiff, it is necessary to prove the circumstances indicated in the table.

		Examples from judicial practice
The defendant obstructs the plaintiff in using the disputed residential premises (refuses to issue a set of keys, changed the door locks, etc.)	Explanations of the parties to the dispute Court decision confirming the fact of the defendant's refusal to provide the plaintiff with the keys to the disputed premises	Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated July 30, 2013 in case No. 11-24274 Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated August 16, 2013 in case No. 11-26378
The plaintiff attempted to move into the apartment, but relations with the defendant are conflicting, the defendant prevents the plaintiff from accessing the disputed premises Departure of the plaintiff from the disputed premises is forced	Coupon-notification of filing an application with the internal affairs bodies Witness testimony Resolutions and other documents of the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, confirming the fact that the defendant obstructed the use of the premises by the plaintiff, as well as the existence of conflict relations between them	Determination of the Moscow City Court dated April 14, 2014 N 4g / 7-2945 / 14 Determination of the Moscow City Court dated April 1, 2014 N 4g / 5-1922 / 2014 Determination of the Moscow City Court dated August 30, 2013 N 4g / 1-8888

The plaintiff is the owner of the disputed premises or part of it, therefore, has the right to own, use and dispose of the property belonging to him	Certificate of ownership of the dwelling (or part of the dwelling)	Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 03.12.2013 N 4-KG13-32 Determination of the Moscow City Court dated April 11, 2014 N 4g / 6-3124 / 2014 Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated January 28, 2014 in case No. 33-1868
Previously, the procedure for using the disputed residential premises was determined, according to which the plaintiff has the right to use this premises	Court decision on determining the procedure for the use of residential premises	Determination of the Moscow City Court of July 18, 2013 N 4g / 7-7068 / 13

The plaintiff did not voluntarily waive the right to use the disputed residential premises and showed interest in it even during the period of residence in another place	Receipts for payment of housing and utilities, in which the plaintiff is indicated as the payer Lack of reliable evidence of the plaintiff's voluntary renunciation of the rights to the disputed living quarters Witness testimony	Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated 08/06/2013 in case N 11-25223 Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated November 6, 2013 in case N 11-34416/2013
The plaintiff did not lose the right to use the disputed residential premises	Absence of any evidence of the plaintiff's loss of the right to use the premises	Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated January 22, 2014 in case No. 33-1870/14 Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated December 16, 2013 in case No. 11-41498/13 Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated December 2, 2013 in case No. 11-39337
The plaintiff is a family member of the tenant, has the same right as the tenant to use the premises and equal obligations	Extract from the house book on the registration of the plaintiff in the apartment as a member of the tenant's family Birth certificate Marriage certificate Other documents confirming family ties between the plaintiff and the defendant	Determination of the Moscow City Court dated April 16, 2014 N 4g / 5-3826 / 2014 Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated 08.10.2013 N 11-29356/13

- If the ownership of the residential premises has passed to another person, and the relatives of the former owner who lived in it demand to move into this premises, it is worth paying the attention of the court to paragraph 2 of Art. 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the transfer of ownership of a residential building or apartment to another person is the basis for terminating the right to use the residential premises by family members of the former owner, unless otherwise provided by law.

To make a decision in favor of the defendant, it is necessary to prove the circumstances indicated in the table.

Circumstances to be proved	Evidence supporting these circumstances	Examples from judicial practice
The defendant does not interfere with the plaintiff's use of the premises	The act of checking the apartment, carried out by the district commissioner at the request of the plaintiff Decision of the district police officer on the refusal to initiate a criminal case based on the results of the audit at the request of the plaintiff Witness testimony Lack of evidence that the defendant obstructed the use of the premises	Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated July 18, 2013 in case No. 11-22508
Additionally, for cases when the apartment is owned:
The plaintiff, being the owner of a small share of the disputed residential premises, by demanding to move into this premises, abuses the right granted to him by law	Certificate of ownership of a share in the residential premises indicating the size of the share owned by the plaintiff, as well as total area living quarters	Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03.12.2013 N 4-KG13-32 Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated April 4, 2013 in case No. 11-1505\13
The plaintiff ceased to be a member of the owner's family and moved out of the dwelling owned by the defendant, in connection with which he lost the right to use it	Divorce Certificate Court decision on divorce	Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated 04.10.2013 in case No. 11-30314
Additionally, for cases where the apartment is used on the basis of a social tenancy agreement:
The plaintiff for a long time did not show interest in using the residential premises and did not live in it	Notification of the District Department of Internal Affairs on the date of departure of the plaintiff from the disputed residential premises Receipts confirming that the defendant paid for the apartment and utilities Coupon-notification of the claimant's application to the Department of Internal Affairs for assistance in connection with obstruction in the use of the premises, indicating the date of acceptance of the application A copy of the application for the annulment of the court decision on recognizing the plaintiff as having lost the right to use the residential premises with a stamp of the court office on acceptance Plaintiff's testimony	Decree of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court dated April 26, 2013 in case No. 44g-33 Determination of the Moscow City Court dated March 24, 2014 N 4g / 4-2157
The plaintiff voluntarily moved out of the disputed residential premises to another residential premises for permanent residence Plaintiff fails to pay utility bills for disputed housing	A copy of the certificate of ownership of the apartment, which belongs to the plaintiff and in which he lives Receipts for payment of utility bills by the defendant Witness testimony Explanations of the plaintiff and the defendant	Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated July 8, 2013 in case No. 11-21151 Definition of the Moscow City Court dated 04.06.2014 N 4g / 9-5301 / 2014 Decree of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court dated April 26, 2013 in case No. 44g-33

Statement of claim

about the installation and non-imposition of obstacles

in the use of residential premises owned

The plaintiff is the owner/co-owner/family member of the owner of the apartment/room/share in the apartment (room) located at: ________________________________ (hereinafter referred to as the Residential Premises), which is confirmed by _____________________________.

According to Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right to own, use and dispose of his property.

According to Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner may demand the elimination of any violations of his right, even if these violations were not connected with deprivation of possession.

By virtue of h. 4 Article. 3 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, no one can be evicted from a dwelling or restricted in the right to use a dwelling, including the right to receive public services, except on the grounds and in the manner provided for by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws.

By virtue of h. 1 Article. 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of the residential premises exercises the rights of possession, use and disposal of the residential premises belonging to him on the right of ownership in accordance with its purpose and the limits of its use.

- Since the Claimant is the owner of the disputed Residential Premises / part of the Premises, he has the right to own, use and dispose of it at his own discretion. The Claimant's ownership of the Residential Premises/part of the Residential Premises is confirmed by a certificate of ownership/extract from the USRR/other documents.

According to Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right to own, use and dispose of his property.

- Previously, the procedure for using the disputed Residential Premises was determined, according to which the Claimant has the right to use this premises, which is confirmed by the court decision on determining the procedure for using the residential premises, however, the Respondent does not comply with the procedure established by the court.

According to Art. 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the possession and use of property in shared ownership is carried out by agreement of all its participants, and if agreement is not reached, in the manner established by the court.

Based on the above and guided h. 4 Article. 3, part 1, art. 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, art. Art. 131, 132, 209, 247, 304 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

ASK:

2. Oblige the Respondent not to obstruct the use of the Residential Premises.

3. Determine the procedure for using the Residential Premises.

4. Oblige the Respondent to issue the keys to the Residential Premises to the Claimant.

Applications:

1. A copy of the certificate of the Claimant's ownership of the disputed residential premises.

2. Evidence that the Defendant refuses to give the Claimant a set of keys to the disputed Residential Premises, changed the locks on the front door: a copy of the court decision confirming the Defendant's refusal to provide the Claimant with the keys.

3. Evidence that the Respondent prevents the Claimant's access to the Residential Premises, the relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent acquired the character of a conflict, and the Claimant's departure from the Premises was forced: a copy of the coupon-notification of the Department of Internal Affairs on the acceptance of the application / copies of resolutions (other documents) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

4. Evidence that the procedure for using the disputed Residential Premises was previously determined: a copy of the court decision on determining the procedure for using the Residential Premises.

5. Receipt of payment of state duty.

6. Copy of the statement of claim for the Respondent.

7. Power of attorney for a representative (if the claim is filed by the Claimant's representative).

"___" __________ ____G.

Claimant (representative):

(signature) (full name)

Judicial acts attached to the statement of claim:

Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated January 22, 2014 in case N 33-1870/14

Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated October 8, 2013 in case No. 11-29356/13

Statement of claim

about the installation and non-imposition of obstacles

in the use of housing

provided under a social contract

"___" _________ ____ g. N ____ apartment / room, which is in municipal ownership and located at: ______________________________ (hereinafter referred to as the Residential Premises), provided for use by _________________________________ on the basis of a social tenancy agreement N _____ dated "____" _______ ____.

Currently, due to the fault of the Respondent, the Claimant is unable to use the specified Residential Premises, while:

— The Respondent refuses to give the Claimant a set of keys to the Residential Premises, changed the locks on the front door, which is confirmed by: testimony of witnesses / court decision confirming the Respondent's refusal to provide the Claimant with the keys.

– the Respondent prevents the Claimant from accessing the Residential Premises, in connection with which the Claimant applied to the Department of Internal Affairs; the relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent acquired the character of a conflict, and the departure of the Claimant from the Residential Premises was forced, which is confirmed by: a coupon-notification of the Department of Internal Affairs about the acceptance of the application / testimonies of witnesses / decisions (other documents) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

- The plaintiff did not waive the right to use the disputed Residential Premises and showed interest in it even during the period of residence in another place, which is confirmed by the testimony of witnesses - in particular, he paid for housing and utilities, which is confirmed by receipts for payment of housing and utilities.

In accordance with Art. 71 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the temporary absence of a tenant of a dwelling under a social tenancy agreement, any of his family members living with him or all of these citizens does not entail a change in their rights and obligations under a social tenancy agreement.

— The Claimant is a member of the Tenant's family, has the same right to use the Residential Premises and equal obligations, which is confirmed by: an extract from the house register on registration in the Residential Premises as a member of the Tenant's family / birth certificate / marriage certificate / other documents confirming related relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent.

According to Art. 69 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, family members of the tenant of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement have equal rights and obligations with the tenant. Members of the family of the tenant of a dwelling under a social tenancy agreement who have legal capacity and have been limited in their capacity to act shall be jointly and severally liable with the tenant for the obligations arising from the social tenancy agreement.

If a citizen has ceased to be a member of the family of the tenant of the dwelling under a social tenancy agreement, but continues to live in the occupied dwelling, he retains the same rights as the tenant and members of his family have. The specified citizen is independently responsible for his obligations arising from the relevant contract of social employment.

Based on the above and guided by n. 4 Article. 3, Art. 69, Art. 71 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, art. 305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, art. Art. 131, 132 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

ASK:

1. Move the Claimant into the Residential Premises.

2. Oblige the Respondent not to obstruct the Claimant in using the Residential Premises.

3. Oblige the Respondent to issue the keys to the Residential Premises to the Claimant.

Applications:

1. Evidence that the Defendant refuses to give the Claimant a set of keys to the disputed Residential Premises, changed the locks on the front door: a copy of the court decision confirming the Defendant's refusal to provide the Claimant with the keys.

2. Evidence that the Respondent prevents the Claimant's access to the Residential Premises, the relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent acquired the character of a conflict, and the Claimant's departure from the Premises was forced: a copy of the voucher-notification of the Department of Internal Affairs on the acceptance of the application / copies of resolutions (other documents) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

3. Evidence that the Claimant did not waive the right to use the disputed Residential Premises and showed interest in it even during the period of residence in another place: copies of receipts for payment of bills for housing and utilities.

Objection to a claim

about moving in and not obstructing the use

residential property owned

"___" ________ ___G. a lawsuit was filed with the court for moving in and not obstructing the use of an apartment / room located at: _________________________ (hereinafter referred to as the Residential Premises).

- The Respondent does not obstruct the Claimant in using the Residential Premises, which is confirmed by: an act of checking the apartment, carried out by the district commissioner at the request of the Claimant / by the decision of the district police officer on the refusal to initiate a criminal case based on the results of the audit at the request of the Claimant / by the absence of other evidence of obstruction by the Respondent in use of the premises.

- The Claimant, being the owner of a small share of the disputed Residential Premises, by demanding moving into this Premises, is abusing the right granted to him by law. The size of the Claimant's share in the ownership of the Residential Premises is confirmed by: a certificate of ownership / an extract from the USRR / other documents.

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are not allowed to exercise civil rights solely with the intent to harm another person, actions bypassing the law with an unlawful purpose, as well as other obviously unfair exercise of civil rights (abuse of the right).

- The Claimant ceased to be a member of the owner's family and moved out of the Residential Premises owned by the Respondent, and therefore lost the right to use it, which is confirmed by: a certificate of divorce / court decision on divorce.

In accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation in the event of termination of family relations with the owner of the residential premises, the right to use this residential premises is not retained by the former family member of the owner of this residential premises, unless otherwise established by agreement between the owner and the former member of his family.

ASK:

Deny the Claimant the satisfaction of the claims brought by them.

Applications:

1. Evidence that the Respondent does not obstruct the Claimant from using the Residential Premises: a copy of the act of checking the apartment, carried out by the district commissioner at the request of the plaintiff / a copy of the decision of the district commissioner of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to refuse to initiate a criminal case based on the results of the audit at the request of the Claimant.

2. Evidence of the size of the Claimant's share in the ownership of the Residential Premises: certificate of ownership / extract from the USRR.

3. Evidence that the Plaintiff ceased to be a member of the owner's family and moved out of the Residential Premises owned by the Defendant, and therefore lost the right to use it: a copy of the divorce certificate / a copy of the court decision on divorce.

It follows from the statement of claim that the Plaintiff asks to move him into the specified Residential Premises and not to interfere with its use.

The defendant disagrees with the claims because:

- The Respondent does not obstruct the Plaintiff in using the Residential Premises, which is confirmed by: an act of checking the apartment, carried out by the district commissioner at the request of the Claimant / by the decision of the district commissioner of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to refuse to initiate a criminal case based on the results of the audit at the request of the Plaintiff / the absence of other evidence of obstruction by the Respondent in use of the premises.

By virtue of Art. 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, art. Art. 209, 288 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of a residential premises exercises the rights of possession, use and disposal of the residential premises belonging to him on the right of ownership in accordance with its purpose and the limits of its use, which are established by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. The owner of a dwelling has the right to grant possession and (or) use of a dwelling owned by him on the basis of the right of ownership to a citizen on the basis of a lease agreement, a contract for gratuitous use or on another basis. legal basis, as well as a legal entity on the basis of a lease agreement or on another legal basis, taking into account the requirements established by civil law, the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

- The Claimant for a long time did not show interest in using the Residential Premises and did not live in it, which is confirmed by: a message from the District Department of Internal Affairs about the date of the Plaintiff's departure from the disputed residential premises / receipts confirming that the payment for the apartment and utilities was carried out by the Respondent / coupon - notification of the Claimant's application to the Department of Internal Affairs for assistance in connection with the obstruction in the use of the premises, indicating the date of acceptance of the application / a copy of the application to cancel the court decision in absentia to recognize the Claimant as having lost the right to use the residential premises with a stamp of the court office on acceptance.

In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation in the event of the departure of the tenant and members of his family to another place of residence, the contract of social rental of residential premises is considered terminated from the date of departure.

— The Claimant voluntarily left the disputed Residential Premises for another residential premise for permanent residence, does not pay utility bills for the disputed Residential Premises, which is confirmed by: a certificate of ownership of the apartment that belongs to the Claimant and in which he lives / receipts for payment of housing and utility payments for the disputed Residential Premises by the Respondent.

Based on part 3 of Art. 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation in the event of the departure of the tenant and members of his family to another place of residence, the contract of social rental of residential premises is considered terminated from the date of departure, unless otherwise provided by federal law.

The Respondent believes that for the indicated reasons the claims are not subject to satisfaction, in connection with which:

ASK:

Deny the Claimant the satisfaction of his claims.

Applications:

1. Evidence that the Respondent does not interfere with the Claimant's use of the Residential Premises: a copy of the act of checking the apartment, carried out by the district commissioner at the request of the Claimant / a copy of the decision of the district police commissioner to refuse to initiate a criminal case based on the results of the audit at the request of the Claimant.

2. Evidence that the Claimant did not show interest in using the Residential Premises for a long time and did not live in it: a copy of the report from the District Department of Internal Affairs on the date of the Plaintiff's departure from the disputed Premises / receipts confirming that the Respondent paid for the apartment and utilities / a copy of the coupon-notification of the Claimant's application to the Department of Internal Affairs for assistance in connection with the obstruction in the use of the premises, indicating the date of acceptance of the application / a copy of the application to cancel the court decision in absentia to recognize the Claimant as having lost the right to use the Residential Premises with a stamp of the court office on acceptance.

3. Evidence that the Claimant voluntarily moved from the disputed Residential Premises to another residential premise for permanent residence, does not pay utility bills for the disputed residential premises: a copy of the certificate of ownership of the apartment, which belongs to the Claimant and in which he lives / copies of receipts on payment of housing and utility bills for the disputed Residential Premises by the Respondent.

4. Copy of objection for Claimant.

5. Power of Attorney (if the objection is filed by the Respondent's representative).

"___" __________ ____G.

Respondent (representative):

________________/_________________________________________________/

(signature) (full name)

Judicial acts attached to the objection to the statement of claim:

Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated July 8, 2013 in case No. 11-21151