The cancellation of the requirement that an immediate rebate (i.e. a rebate not made under a prior agreement) cannot be valid until the tenant is in the profession for one month would not eliminate the necessary protection. As the department states, there is no valid reason to prevent him from abandoning him (z.B. if he finds that he is unable to pay the rent and the landlord is willing to accept the rebate). The tenant`s surrender would constitute an unjustified infringement of his liberty, which is not necessary to defend the legal right to extension. However, as noted in point 27 above, the considerations for transfer agreements are different. Note that the need to enter into a contract only applies if there is a transfer agreement before the actual remission takes place. In some cases, without prior agreement, the parties will move directly to a transfer or there will be a transfer. In such cases, the rebate is valid and the obligation to conclude is removed.
However, we are not convinced that there is no need for a rule that allows the tenant to sign a simple statement if the notice requirements have been met. We accept that the tenant accepts the consequences of the contract to conclude. But the fact is that it is important for the tenant to understand what these consequences are. We therefore recommend amending the proposal to provide that, if the 14-day period has been met, the tenant signs a simple declaration (in a form to be dictated), that he has received the notification and that he has accepted the consequences of the conclusion of the contract in order to exclude the safety of the operation or the transfer agreement.  Currently, the law distinguishes between agreements to terminate a lease agreement at a later date and a rebate that comes into effect immediately. A remission agreement is null and forth unless the court approves the agreement at the joint request of the parties to a lease agreement (paragraph 38, paragraph 4). On the other hand, the tenant may waive the tenancy agreement if he wishes, provided he has worked for at least one month (Article 24, paragraph 2, point b)). As originally enacted, the law provided for a total prohibition of any agreement that purported to exclude the tenant`s rights under the law.
However, in a revision of the 1969 Act, the Laws Commission found that this total prohibition on contracting discouraged landlords from temporarily renting premises, even if the tenant agreed to accept a tenancy agreement. Such a situation can happen. B, for example, if the owner has taken possession and intends to sell, demolish or rebuild the property, but is not prepared to do so immediately. He would be reluctant to temporarily rent the property because the tenant would be able to apply for a new lease and would therefore prefer to leave the property uninhabited. The Commission therefore recommended that it be possible to grant a non-right lease under the law, subject to the guarantee that the court had previously sanctioned the agreement. However, we were initially sceptical as to whether the Department`s proposal for agreements to exclude security from business membership and transfer agreements would maintain the necessary protection for the tenant or be proportionate to the benefits that might result.