Your lease contains a clause that outright prohibits keeping an animal in the dwelling, and you are wondering whether you must give it up, forgo adopting one, or whether you can simply ignore it. The answer is clear and long-standing: such a clause has, in the vast majority of cases, no legal value.
The answer in 30 seconds
Since 1970, the law has prohibited landlords from inserting into a residential lease a clause that prevents a tenant from keeping a pet. Such a clause is "deemed unwritten": it is null and void by law, without the need to have a judge declare it so. There are only two exceptions: first-category dogs (so-called "attack" dogs) and seasonal rentals of tourist furnished accommodations. Upload your lease on bail.immo to check whether such a clause appears in your contract and whether it is indeed without effect.
What the law says
The reference text is Article 10 of Law No. 70-598 of July 9, 1970, which sets out the principle in very direct terms:
"Except in contracts for seasonal rentals of tourist furnished accommodations, any stipulation tending to prohibit the keeping of an animal in a dwelling is deemed unwritten insofar as it concerns a pet. Such keeping is, however, subject to the condition that the said animal causes no damage to the building and no disturbance of enjoyment to its occupants."
In practice: a landlord cannot write in the lease "the keeping of animals is prohibited in the dwelling" and expect that clause to have any effect. If it appears nonetheless, it is simply ignored, as if it had never been written—the rest of the lease continues to apply normally. This rule applies equally to a tenant of an unfurnished dwelling and to a tenant in a standard furnished rental, and also applies to an occupying co-owner faced with a prohibition in the condominium rules.
The same article provides a second, lesser-known sentence: "A stipulation tending to prohibit the keeping of a dog belonging to the first category mentioned in Article L. 211-12 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code is lawful." This is the only category of animals that a landlord can validly exclude through a lease clause.
Why this can be a problem
In practice, these clauses continue to be widely used, often copied from an old lease template or found online, without the landlord even knowing that it is without value. The risk, from the tenant's side, is self-censorship: giving up adopting an animal, or worse, parting with one, based solely on an illegal clause that no one has ever challenged.
The second risk goes the other way. The law protects the keeping of the animal, not the nuisances it may cause. A landlord cannot invoke a prohibition clause to act, but he can perfectly well bring an action if the animal causes damage to the dwelling (scratches, odors, damage to surfaces) or a proven disturbance of enjoyment for the neighbors (repeated barking, aggressiveness, unsanitary conditions). It is then not the keeping of the animal as such that is at fault, but the failure to comply with the obligation to use the premises peacefully, provided for in Article 7 of the Law of July 6, 1989—a specific "anti-animal" clause is not even necessary to act on this ground.
A concrete example
A tenant moves into an apartment whose lease contains the statement: "any keeping of an animal, even temporary, is strictly prohibited in the leased premises." Six months later, he adopts a cat. The landlord, during a visit, discovers the animal and threatens termination for breach of the lease. Yet the clause invoked has been deemed unwritten since the signing of the lease: the tenant has committed no contractual breach simply by keeping a cat that causes neither damage nor disturbance to the neighbors. He can respond in writing citing Article 10 of the 1970 law; no formal notice based solely on that clause can succeed.
Exceptions and edge cases
- First-category dog: so-called "attack" dogs falling under Article L. 211-12 of the Rural Code (essentially pitbull-type dogs without pedigree) are the only category of animals that a lease clause can validly exclude.
- Seasonal rental of tourist furnished accommodation: a landlord may completely prohibit animals in a short-term rental for tourist purposes (e.g., an Airbnb classified as tourist furnished accommodation). This exception does not apply to a "classic" long-term furnished lease, which remains covered by the protection of Article 10.
- Proven damage or disturbance of enjoyment: keeping remains subject to the absence of damage to the building and disturbance to other occupants. An animal causing repeated and documented nuisances may justify action by the landlord, independently of any clause.
- Condominium rules: a clause in the condominium rules that would prohibit animals is subject to the same principle and deemed unwritten under the same conditions, whether it concerns an occupying co-owner or a tenant.
- Non-pet animals: the protection targets companion animals ("pet"). It does not cover the keeping of exotic, dangerous, or otherwise regulated animals (NAC subject to authorization, protected species, etc.), which remain governed by their specific texts.
Checklist for reacting to an anti-animal clause
- Re-read your lease: if a clause prohibits keeping an animal, it is most likely deemed unwritten—no need to ask the landlord's permission to ignore it.
- Check that your situation does not fall under the two legal exceptions (first-category dog, seasonal rental of tourist furnished accommodation).
- Ensure that your animal causes neither damage to the dwelling nor disturbance to the neighbors: this is the only condition that is truly enforceable.
- If the landlord contests, respond in writing citing Article 10 of Law No. 70-598 of July 9, 1970.
- Keep a written record of any exchange on the subject, useful in case of persistent disagreement.
Possible actions
If your landlord threatens termination or refuses renewal solely because you keep an animal, a written reminder of Article 10 of the 1970 law is usually enough to end the dispute. In case of a deadlock, the departmental conciliation commission or the judicial court may be seized, but the outcome is in practice very predictable as long as no damage or disturbance to the neighbors is demonstrated. Analyze your lease on bail.immo to identify this type of clause and know its real value before discussing it with your landlord.
FAQ
Can my landlord refuse to renew my lease because I have an animal? No, keeping a pet that causes neither damage nor disturbance to the neighbors does not constitute a legitimate ground for non-renewal or termination.
Must I inform my landlord before adopting an animal? This is not a legal obligation. Informing him remains a matter of courtesy, particularly to anticipate any questions related to home insurance or the inventory of fixtures.
Is a clause limiting the size or number of animals valid? No: as soon as it "tends to prohibit" the keeping of a pet, even partially (beyond a certain number, a certain size), it falls under the same principle and is deemed unwritten, subject to the absence of damage or disturbance of enjoyment.
What happens if my animal damages the dwelling? The prohibition clause remains without effect, but the landlord may seek compensation for the damage caused by the animal just like any other rental damage, on the basis of the common law of tenant liability.
Sources
- Légifrance — Article 10, Law No. 70-598 of July 9, 1970
- Service-Public.fr — Prohibited clauses in a residential lease
Legal information
The information presented on this page is provided for informational purposes and is based on the texts and sources available at the time of its publication or last update. Legislation, regulations, and case law may evolve at any time. The results and explanations offered by bail.immo do not constitute legal advice and do not replace the opinion of a lawyer or another competent legal professional.