Since the law of May 26, 2026 , monthly payment of commercial rent has been a right for certain tenants engaged in commercial or artisanal activities. This new system can facilitate their cash flow management, but it notably requires the absence of undisputed rent and service charge arrears. Its application becomes complicated when the tenant is subject to safeguard or receivership proceedings and remains liable for rent prior to the commencement of these proceedings.

By Morgan Jamet and Fanny Hurreau, lawyers – ARST Avocats

Monthly payment of commercial rent: what does the reform entail?

Law No. 2026-403 of May 26, 2026, on the simplification of economic life, created ArticleL. 145-32-1 of the Commercial Code. This text allows tenants who fall within its scope to obtain monthly rent payments, even when the lease previously stipulated quarterly payments.

Monthly rent payments are therefore not a favor that the landlord is free to accept or refuse. When the legal conditions are met, it is a right. The request takes effect from the next payment due date stipulated in the lease.

The provision also applies to leases that were in effect when the law was enacted. Therefore, a clause stipulating quarterly payments is not, in itself, sufficient to prevent an eligible tenant from claiming the rent.

Which tenants can request monthly payment of commercial rent?

The new right does not automatically apply to all holders of a commercial lease. It concerns premises intended for the exercise of a retail trade, wholesale trade, commercial service provision or artisanal service provision.

Before submitting an application, it is therefore necessary to verify both the actual activity carried out on the premises, the contractual purpose of the lease, and the status of the rent account. For certain leases covering industrial, professional, or atypical activities, the application of the legislation may require a specific analysis.

What condition is linked to unpaid rent and charges?

Article L. 145-32-1 makes the monthly payment of commercial rent conditional on the absence of arrears in the payment of sums due for rent and charges, when these sums have not been the subject of a prior dispute.

This type of document requires three practical checks: the existence of an overdue and unpaid sum, its classification as rent or a service charge, and the possible existence of a dispute raised prior to the request. A simple informal discussion or an opportunistic dispute filed at the last minute does not offer the same security as a written, detailed, and legally sound objection.

Parliamentary proceedings confirm the importance of this condition. The legislature has eliminated a criterion that would have depended on the landlord initiating legal action, opting instead for the sole requirement of arrears. This development strengthens the landlord's argument based on an objective review of the rental account.

How to request monthly payment of commercial rent?

The text does not impose any detailed formalities. In practice, however, the request must be verifiable and dated. A registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, or any other written document that definitively establishes its receipt, is recommended.

The application will benefit from identifying the lease and the premises, recalling the activity carried out, referring to article L. 145-32-1 of the Commercial Code, expressly requesting monthly payment from the next due date and specifying that the rents and charges are up to date or that the disputed amounts have been previously contested.

A preliminary check of the landlord's statement of account is advisable. This prevents the tenant from having a balance due, an adjustment of charges, or an unpaid indexation weaken their claim. For their part, landlords must respond based on an accurate statement of account and distinguish between undisputed amounts and those that have been formally discussed.

What happens if the tenant is in insolvency proceedings?

The monthly payment of commercial rent raises a unique difficulty when the tenant is subject to safeguard or receivership proceedings. They may be fully up-to-date with rent payments after the commencement of these proceedings while still owing prior rent, which is declared as a liability.

Let's take the example of a lease stipulating a quarterly rent of €30,000. A payment of €30,000 remains unpaid when insolvency proceedings are initiated. The landlord files a claim. After the judgment, the company continues its operations and pays the rent due for the premises as usual. As of the date of the claim, no subsequent rent is unpaid, but a prior rent debt remains.

Does this debt still constitute an "arrear payment" preventing monthly installments? The text does not distinguish between debts incurred before and after the commencement of insolvency proceedings. No case law has yet definitively resolved this issue.

Why can't previous rent payments simply be regularized?

The commencement of insolvency proceedings profoundly alters the regime governing pre-existing debts. In principle, the debtor can no longer freely repay them. Individual actions seeking payment or the termination of a contract for non-payment are suspended or prohibited. The creditor must file a proof of claim and submit to the collective rules.

Conversely, subsequent debts arising legitimately for the purposes of the proceedings or in consideration of a service provided to the debtor must be paid when due. For a lease that continues, the distinction between prior liabilities and subsequent rent payments is therefore essential.

The prior debt is not erased, but the tenant cannot freely settle it in order to satisfy the condition set by article L. 145-32-1. This is precisely what makes the articulation of the two regimes delicate.

First interpretation: any remaining arrears prevent the monthly payment of commercial rent

According to a preliminary interpretation, overdue and unpaid rent remains objectively arrears until it is settled or validly contested. Article L. 145-32-1 does not provide for any specific exception for insolvency proceedings, and the commencement of proceedings does not extinguish the landlord's claim.

The preparatory work lends weight to this analysis: the choice to focus on the very existence of arrears, rather than on legal action for payment, suggests that the legislator intended to adopt an accounting criterion independent of the possibilities for recovery. In this interpretation, prior rental liabilities would preclude the right to monthly payments.

Second interpretation: only subsequent rent payments should be examined

Another approach involves assessing the tenancy situation in light of the obligations the tenant is normally required to fulfill after the commencement of insolvency proceedings. This approach is based on the idea that a debt included in the liabilities should not continue to produce, in the future performance of the lease, all the individual consequences related to its non-payment.

Insolvency law already neutralizes certain effects of prior unpaid rent. Thus, in principle, a landlord cannot obtain, after the commencement of insolvency proceedings, the termination of a lease due to a prior debt if the termination was not yet final. While not perfectly applicable, this logic can be used to argue that only subsequent unpaid rent should be considered for monthly rent calculations.

This interpretation is also consistent with the economic objective of the reform: to reduce the significant cash outflows caused by quarterly payments. It would allow a company that meets all its current obligations to benefit from a payment arrangement that would aid its recovery. However, this objective alone is not sufficient to negate the explicit requirement of no outstanding payments.

Does a disputed debt on the liabilities side cease to be an obstacle?

The text excludes from this condition sums that have been the subject of a prior dispute. In insolvency proceedings, the tenant may contest the claim declared by the landlord during the verification of liabilities. It remains to be determined whether this dispute constitutes a "prior dispute" within the meaning of the new article.

The word "preliminary" is itself ambiguous: must the dispute precede the request for monthly payments, the declaration of claim, or the judgment opening the proceedings? In the absence of legal clarification, the chronology and formalization of the exchanges will be decisive.

Disputes should obviously only be considered if they are based on serious grounds: accounting errors, non-recoverable charges, disputed indexation, payment already made, or non-performance that could justify an exception. They cannot be used artificially for the sole purpose of obtaining monthly billing.

What practical reflexes should be adopted?

For the tenant

Before submitting any request, the tenant must review their rental account, identify any debts incurred before the commencement of insolvency proceedings, gather proof of subsequent rent payments, and identify any disputes already raised. The request must clearly distinguish between declared liabilities and current obligations and explain why prior amounts should not prevent the implementation of monthly payments.

When the procedure is underway, it is also prudent to involve the bodies of the procedure in the process and to ensure that the new periodicity is compatible with the terms of continuation of the lease and the cash management chosen.

For the landlord

The landlord must verify the eligibility of the business activity, the requested effective date, the exact amount of rent and charges, and the validity of the objections raised. In the presence of prior liabilities, a refusal based solely on the letter of the law has strong arguments, but it must be carefully justified given the uncertainty surrounding its application to Book VI of the Commercial Code.

It is also important to distinguish between previous rent payments, which are subject to declaration, and subsequent unpaid rent payments, which may open up specific avenues for action. An imprecise answer can obscure this distinction and weaken the recovery or termination strategy.

Conclusion: a useful reform, but its implementation remains uncertain

Monthly payment of commercial rent provides an immediate cash flow management tool for eligible businesses. Outside of insolvency proceedings, its implementation depends primarily on the scope of activity, the regularity of the rent account, and the quality of the request submitted to the landlord.

In safeguard or receivership proceedings, the situation is more complex. The wording of the text allows for the argument that any prior arrears remain an obstacle. Conversely, the logic of Book VI allows for an assessment limited to rental obligations incurred after the commencement of the proceedings.

Pending a legal precedent, neither of these two interpretations can be considered definitive. Landlords and tenants therefore have a vested interest in documenting their position, rigorously separating the periods before and after the request, and anticipating the risk of litigation before accepting or refusing it.

Frequently asked questions about monthly commercial rent payments

Can the landlord refuse the monthly payment plan stipulated by the Commercial Code?

The landlord cannot refuse the lease when the tenant carries out an activity covered by Article L. 145-32-1 and meets the legal requirements. However, a refusal can be challenged if the activity falls outside the scope of the article or if there are undisputed rent or service charge arrears.

On what date does the monthly payment begin?

The request takes effect from the next payment due date stipulated in the lease. It is therefore important to be able to prove the date on which the landlord received the request.

Does the reform apply to leases that have already been signed?

Yes. The provision is applicable to leases in force at the time of promulgation of the law of May 26, 2026, provided that the tenant and the premises fall within its scope.

Does a disputed arrears prevent monthly payments?

The text excludes sums that have been the subject of prior dispute. The dispute must be genuine, serious, and traceable. However, its sufficiently prior nature and scope may be open to debate.

Do rents incurred before a receivership proceedings block demand?

The law does not explicitly address this question, and no established case law has yet provided a definitive answer. A case-by-case analysis is necessary, particularly with regard to the date of the debts, their declaration, any potential disputes, and subsequent rent payments.

If you require assistance with a commercial rent monthly payment issue in the context of insolvency proceedings, contact ARST Avocats. 

Article written by Morgan Jamet