The director of a barbershop complained to the regional Business Ombudsman in order to protect her rights from ongoing lease payment growing imposed  by administration of urban settlement Kubinka in the Odintsovo district.

   Based on the complainant report, the rent had been improperly and unreasonably increased retrospectively more than tenfold. The municipality who imposed a rent totally disregarded the lease contract between the owner and the tenant.

According to the contract the rent payment can be increased in correspondence with the annual inflation, only and just by the Head of municipality order and not often than once a year.

The tenant submitted a request to the head of Kubinka settlement to provide the reasonable explanation of  the rent to be increased in 10 times at once and what caused  the factors and reasons of one-sided acts contradicting the contract clauses.

  In response the municipality indicated that there its actions were legitimate and forming the rental charge was based on a kind of evaluation reports in spite of lack of any order issued by the head of the settlement.

The response to the request showed that administration of urban settlement Kubinka issued a supplementary agreement to the lease contract without noticing the tenant. And just on the basis of this  it has demanded the applicant  the debt  and fees to be paid down,  despite the fact that it is based on highly doubtful grounds.

Meanwhile there was no actual debt under rental contract.

Having assessed the facts, the Moscow regional ombudsman Vladimir Golovnev recommended to entrepreneur to sue the municipality at the Moscow Region Arbitral Tribunal and expressed his intention to intervene into the lawsuit as the third party.

In May the Moscow Region Arbitral Tribunal, in the presence of all parties,  reasoned to satisfy the entrepreneur claim completely and admit a supplementary agreement could be invalidated. Equally the notification of urban settlement Kubinka of rental increasing declared nullity. Any requests from the municipality on additional payments were considered discharged as well.