From the provision of article 574 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that with the lease agreement the lessor must grant the lessee the use of the thing for as long as the contract lasts and the lessee must pay the agreed rent, it follows that the lease of movable or property, as a debt relationship whose validity and operation is not dependent on ownership or other real right to rent, is valid even when the ownership does not belong to the lessor, who, for this reason, has the rights and the relevant lawsuits from the lease relationship, while the owner and the owner of the lease has only the lawsuits from the ownership and the county in it.

The lessee, in order to nullify the results of the termination by the lessor, must pay within the deadline of A.K 597 par.2 the arrears of rent, the interest thereof and the costs of the termination (AD 1684/1997 ED 28 p. 348).

In particular, from the provision of article 574 of the Civil Code which stipulates that with the lease agreement the lessor has the obligation to grant the lessee the use of the thing for the duration of the contract and the lessee to pay the agreed rent, it clearly follows that the lease of another person’s thing, movable or immovable, is in all respects valid, because the lease is a contractual relationship and the validity and operation of this contract is not affected by ownership, or any other real right over the lease, regardless of whether it is movable or immovable. The relativity of the lease relationship has the effect that the rights and obligations from it belong only to the contracting parties, i.e. the lessor and the lessee, who are legitimized respectively in the relevant (lease) lawsuits. It follows from this that the lessor, even though he is not the owner of the lease, has the right (only he) to claim the rent or to exercise the related actions for the return of the lease and that the owner (full or partial) or the beneficiary of the lease does not are entitled (if they are not lessors) to bring any action from the lease for payment of rent or return of rent, even if the lease has ended, but only actions from ownership or county. The above also applies to the professional lease with only those referred to in article 14 of the p.d. 34/95 (art. 7 § 2 n. 813/78) exceptions, in which, when leasing another person’s property, the lease binds the owner or legal representative of the lessee, as long as the lessee is in good faith (i.e. ignores the rights of third parties in the lease), and the landlord did not protest in writing to the tenant within three months after he became aware of the lease. According to this provision, the “commitment” of the landlord does not mean his participation in the lease, but that he cannot take measures during the lease that prevent the use of the lease by the tenant (AP 108/2003).

Leasing someone else’s thing is valid, because the lease is a contractual relationship, which does not require the lessor to have ownership or other real right over the leased thing. Relevance of the tenancy relationship. A consequence of this procedurally is that only the lessee and the lessor are legalized in the lease proceedings. The lessor, who is not the owner, is the only one entitled to bring actions for the payment of rent or the return of rent for any reason. On the contrary, the owner or usufructuary has only the actions in rem for the infringement of ownership or jurisdiction.

From the provision of article 574 A.K. which stipulates that with the lease agreement the lessor has the obligation to grant the lessee the use of the thing for as long as the contract lasts and the lessee to pay the agreed rent, it clearly follows that the leasing of another’s thing, movable or immovable, is as all valid, because the lease is a contractual relationship and does not affect the validity and operation of this contract or ownership or any other real right on the lease, regardless of whether it is movable or immovable. The relativity of the lease relationship has the effect that the rights and obligations from it belong only to the contracting parties, i.e. the lessor and the lessee, who are legitimized respectively in the relevant (lease) lawsuits. It follows from this that the lessor, even though he is not the owner of the lease, has the right (only he) to claim the rent or to exercise the related lawsuits for the return of the lease.