The owner of a commercial space situated in the center of Chisinau says that a lessee refuses to move out even if the lease expired and the entrepreneur undertook to free the space back in the middle of last August. According to the owner’s lawyer Victor Panțîru, the former occupant, who manages a limited liability company, arrogates to himself rights by abusive methods. More exactly, he said he will remain in the building for an indefinite period of time given that the dispute hasn’t been settled yet.
In a news conference hosted by IPN, lawyer Victor Panțîru said the ownership right is a holy right in a democratic society and this should be respected by the citizens and by the state and should be even defended by the state not only through the agency of courts of law, but also of other law enforcement and inspection institutions. “The situation became outrageous. Being the owner of a building, someone cannot benefit from this for the simple reason that another person does not want to leave and arrogates to oneself rights by abusive methods. This remains in the building for an indefinite period of time, invoking the litigation,” said the lawyer.
According to him, the lessee does not intend to leave even if the lease expired and the occupant was notified of this and even promised to leave. “This is Victor Gudima, the manager of SRL “Congusto”, which operates “Star Kebab” under franchise. This operates on Ismail St, practically at the intersection with Ștefan cel Mare Blvd. It is a rather good place with commercial opportunities and SRL “Congusto”, who runs “Star Kebab” franchise, abusively refuses to free the building to the owner even if this received a notice, the lease and the contract expired and the occupant undertook a personal commitment to free the space on August 15, 2022, but didn’t do it,” stated Victor Panțîru.
The lawyer noted that the owner and the occupant are in litigation over the debts accumulated by the lessee and over the refusal to move out. Together with his client, they were astounded by the attitude of the utility companies to this case and by the indifference of the law enforcement and inspection institutions to the filed complaints. For example, the main electricity provider asked for the budding owner’s consent to sign a contract with the occupant and for a valid lease for the building. When the contract relations between the owner and the lessee were ended, the owner asked to terminate the contract between the Ltd that rents the space and the provider, but the request was ignored. Therefore, the electricity provider is considered to be an accomplice to an illegality committed by the given Ltd. The situation is similar in the case of the water supplier that initially accepted the owner’s request, but then signed a contract with the lessee for the supply of water in tanks to this.
“The provision to include the sewerage service was omitted. That unit is supplied with water in tanks that are stored inside the space in a very dubious way from sanitary and safety viewpoints. There is a risk that the room where the tanks with water are kept will collapse as it was not planned for such a weight. The absence of running water in a unit that provides food services and where the persons eat can lead to infection,” said Victor Panțîru, who noted that the water supplier didn’t react to their approaches.
Note: IPN News Agency gives the right of reply to persons who consider they were touched by the news items produced based on statements of the organizers of the given news conference, including by facilitating the organization of another news conference in similar conditions.
