Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
49 comments 
Tenancy Law And Court Decisions Confirm That The Tenant Is Not Required To Return The Property With New Paint When There Is Only Normal Wear.
The requirement seems simple, almost automatic, and for this reason is rarely questioned. When terminating a lease, many tenants receive the same order from the real estate agent or the owner: return the property “with new paint.” The problem is that, under Brazilian law, this obligation does not exist as a general rule and, in many cases, the contractual clause imposing this requirement may be considered illegal or abusive.
The Tenancy Law, which regulates urban leases in Brazil, does not determine that the tenant is responsible for renovating or restoring the property at the end of the contract. What the law requires is something quite different: the return of the property in the condition it was received, minus normal wear from regular use.
What The Tenancy Law Really Requires From The Tenant
The legal basis is in Law No. 8,245/1991, known as the Tenancy Law. It establishes that the tenant must use the property according to its purpose and return it at the end of the lease in the same condition it was received, except for deterioration resulting from normal use.
-
The noise law will no longer be in effect at 10 PM starting in June with a new rule valid during the 2026 World Cup.
-
The Chamber opens a debate on driver’s licenses at 16 years old as part of a reform that includes around 270 proposals to change the Brazilian Traffic Code and may redesign rules for licensing, enforcement, and circulation in the country.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
This point is fundamental. The legislator acknowledges that every occupied property experiences wear over time: walls lose color, small marks appear, and the visual aspect changes. This is natural, predictable, and legally acceptable.
Therefore, normal wear does not create an obligation for repairs, much less for complete painting of the property.
Why New Paint Has Become A Common Requirement In Contracts
Despite the lack of legal provision, the requirement for new paint has spread through standardized contracts, especially those drafted by real estate agencies. In many cases, these are generic clauses, copied over the years, that do not undergo careful legal analysis.
The problem arises when this clause attempts to transfer a cost to the tenant that, under the law, does not belong to them. Painting an entire property simply because it has been occupied for a few years is not repairing damage, but aesthetic renewal, something that directly benefits the owner.
It is precisely for this reason that courts have been rejecting such impositions when there is no proof of actual damage.
The Courts’ Understanding: Normal Wear Does Not Create An Obligation
Brazilian jurisprudence is consistent in stating that the tenant is only liable for damages exceeding normal use of the property. When the paint is simply worn due to time, without infiltrations caused by the tenant, deep scratches, serious stains, or undue modifications, there is no obligation to paint.
Several court decisions reinforce that clauses requiring automatic repainting at the end of the lease may be considered abusive, especially when:
– there is no detailed initial inspection report;
– there is no evidence of damage beyond normal wear;
– the requirement imposes a disproportionate cost on the tenant.
In legal disputes, it is common for judges to dismiss the obligation to paint when it is clear that the property was returned in conditions compatible with the time of use.
When The Tenant Can, Indeed, Be Required To Paint
It is important to make a clear distinction. The law does not protect the tenant who caused damage to the property. If there is proof that the paint was compromised due to misuse, undue alterations, infiltrations caused by negligence, or modifications made without authorization, the obligation to repair may exist.
There may also be a valid requirement when:
– the property was delivered freshly painted and this is proven by a detailed report;
– the contract requires the property to be returned painted and this clause does not create excessive imbalance;
– there is proof that the paint was damaged beyond normal use.
Even in these cases, the analysis is not automatic. The Judiciary evaluates proportionality, reasonableness, and concrete evidence.
The Role Of Initial And Final Inspections In The Conflict
A large part of conflicts arises from the absence of a well-done inspection report. Without a detailed document describing the state of the property at the start of the lease, the painting requirement loses strength.
The initial inspection serves as a legal parameter. If it indicates that the paint already showed signs of use, it makes no sense to require the property to be returned “as new.”
For this reason, courts usually give decisive weight to the comparative inspection between entry and exit, and not just to the text of the contract.
Abusive Clauses And Contractual Balance
Brazilian contractual law does not allow one party to impose disproportionate obligations on the other. Even if the tenant has signed the contract, this does not mean that every clause is automatically valid.
Clauses that impose new paint without considering normal wear may be seen as an attempt at unjust enrichment of the owner, transferring to the tenant a cost that is part of the normal maintenance of the property.
This understanding directly relates to the Civil Code and principles such as good faith and contractual balance.
What The Tenant Should Do Upon Receiving The Requirement
In the face of the demand, the first step is to analyze the initial inspection report and compare it with the current state of the property. If there is no damage beyond normal wear, the requirement may be contested administratively or legally.
In many cases, merely questioning based on the Tenancy Law is sufficient to dismiss the charge, avoiding unnecessary litigation.
The idea that every tenant must return the property with new paint finds no direct support in the law. What legislation requires is the return in conditions compatible with normal use, not the aesthetic renewal of the property.
Clauses that attempt to impose this obligation in a generic manner may be rejected by the Judiciary, especially when they create contractual imbalance. Understanding this point prevents abuses, reduces conflicts, and ensures a fair rental relationship for both parties.
Em Poços de Caldas onde moro, além de exigir pintura nova, ainda precisa ser com tinta suvinil rsrsrs
Essa matéria estou precisando muito de vocês sou idosa o apartamento aluguei muitos CUPINS aptos antigo maquiou e aluguei todas as portas meus móveis são de madeira do sul fram todos estragado tenho 70 anos morava no mesmo prédio mudei de andar e de uma chinesa colocou carpete de madeira e só papelão em baixo perdi móveis que doei per di a pouca saúde que tinha quero ir imporá daqui sorocaba cetro edificio lelon número 992 sorocaba sp Por caridade me ajudem onde vocês estão?
Em São Paulo no Ipiranga, a dona de um apartamento onde também é proprietária de mais 15, além da pintura exigiu a marca da tinta para tal, além da contagem de buracos feitos por pregos nas paredes. Na vistoria inicial contestamos o laudo por haverem “mais” furos do que existiam na cozinha e na lavanderia. Exigiu tambem cera de carnaúba no tacos, ou seja, como advogada ela mesmo redigiu o contrato sem levar em conta a lei do inquilinato.