An equestrian centre, its boxes, its land and a flat are let under an agricultural lease for 8,801.33 € a month, with a three-month security deposit. Six years later the tenant claims the deposit back and asks for a lawful farm rent to be fixed, at 182.77 € a year according to her. On 2 July 2026 the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) upheld both principles: the statutory farm tenancy regime (statut du fermage) prohibits any security deposit, and a clause fixing a global rent without separating the dwelling, the farm buildings and the land is unlawful. Between 8,801 € a month and 182 € a year there is room for a full rental valuation.
The facts
By deed of 3 October 2011 a company sold to another a business comprising the leasehold of land, installations and premises forming an equestrian centre, owned by a civil company. On 1 November 2011 that civil company let the same property to the buyer under an agricultural lease (bail à ferme), for a monthly rent of 8,801.33 € and a security deposit of 26,404 €. Two riders, in 2014 and 2015, added a flat, six boxes and other premises linked to the business.
On 12 December 2017 the tenant applied to the agricultural leases tribunal: works under penalty, compensation, regularisation of an unlawful farm rent with repayment of the excess, and repayment of the security deposit. The Versailles Court of Appeal, on 9 January 2024, dismissed the last two claims. On the deposit, it held that the sum was handed over to secure unpaid rent or tenant’s repairs at the end of the lease, was repayable, and therefore had a lawful cause. On the farm rent, it held that the absence of a separate price for the land, the farm buildings and the dwelling did not make the clause unlawful, and that the global rent should be compared with the sum of the prices of each element under the prefectoral orders. In passing it ordered the tenant to repay 61,421 € overpaid on an operating loss and 46,667.51 € of withheld rent.
The decision
The third civil chamber partially quashed the judgment (Cass. 3e civ., 2 July 2026, no. 24-12.681, published in the Bulletin).
On the security deposit, under articles L. 411-12, L. 411-74 and L. 415-12 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code: “the public-policy farm tenancy regime defines exhaustively the cases in which money or value may be handed by the tenant to the landlord. It follows that the landlord may not receive, on conclusion of the lease or on a change of farmer, a sum intended to secure the performance of the tenant’s obligations, even if it is repayable at the end of the lease, so that the sum received on that account is not due and is subject to repayment.”
On the farm rent, under articles L. 411-11 and L. 411-14 of the same code: “the price of each farm rent is made up, on the one hand, of the rent for the dwelling buildings and, on the other, of the rent for the farm buildings and the bare land”, provisions of public policy. “It follows that the clause of an agricultural lease fixing the farm rent without distinguishing, on the one hand, the rent for the dwelling buildings and, on the other, the rent for the farm buildings and the bare land, is unlawful, which opens an action for regularisation of an unlawful farm rent.” The Court of Appeal, which had merely compared the global rent with the sum of the prices of each element, breached those provisions.
The quashing carries with it the related orders, including the repayment of 61,421 € and the withheld rent, by indivisibility. The case is remitted.
What this changes for valuation
An equestrian centre falls under the farm tenancy regime. The preparation and training of domestic equines with a view to their use are agricultural activities within the meaning of article L. 311-1 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code. A lease of the installations of an equestrian centre is therefore an agricultural lease, subject to the statutory regime, whatever label the parties chose, and even when it followed the sale of a business. That point governs everything else: the rent is not free, it is framed by the prefectoral orders of the department.
The split is an obligation, not a method. Article L. 411-11 requires two components: the rent for the dwelling buildings on one side, that for the farm buildings and bare land on the other, each within the limits set by the administrative authority. A global rent, even one that turns out to be lower than the sum of the maxima, is unlawful in its form, and the tenant may claim regularisation. For the valuer this means that a rental-value report on a rural property never shows a single figure: it describes and prices separately the flat, the boxes, the riding arena, the barns, the paddocks and the land.
How a lawful farm rent is computed. For bare land and farm buildings the prefectoral order sets minima and maxima per hectare or per building according to categories; the rental value of each element sits within that range, according to its condition, its area, its usefulness for the activity, and is compared with the farm rents charged in the area for equestrian installations. For the dwelling, the rent is fixed in money within the limits of the prefectoral order, taking account of the condition and area of the accommodation. The gap between the contractual rent of 8,801.33 € a month and the 182.77 € a year claimed by the tenant shows that the debate before the court of remittal will turn first on the make-up of the property and the classification of each element; a valuation report that describes the premises, measures the areas and applies the order element by element is what the court will expect.
The security deposit and other sums. The farm tenancy regime prohibits any payment not provided for by law, even a repayable one. The 26,404 € deposit is not due and must be repaid, with the increased interest provided in article L. 411-74. The same logic applies to key money, takeovers of equipment at a price above its market value and other payments on a change of farmer; where movable assets are taken over, their market value must be established, which is again a valuation question.
For the landlord too. A landlord of equestrian installations who has invested beyond the legal obligations may, with the tenant’s agreement, bring those investments into the farm rent, as article L. 411-12 provides; but that has to be written and quantified. A report that isolates the rental value of the investments made protects the landlord as much as the split protects the tenant.
What the valuer takes from it
- An equestrian centre is an agricultural business; its lease falls under the farm tenancy regime and its rent is regulated.
- The farm rent must consist of two separate rents, dwelling on one side, farm buildings and land on the other; a global rent is unlawful.
- The rental value of a rural property is priced element by element, within the ranges of the prefectoral order, with references from the area.
- No security deposit or any sum outside the regime may be collected by the landlord; what was paid is repaid with increased interest.
- The landlord’s investments beyond the legal obligations may enter the farm rent if agreed and quantified.
Further reading
The Commercial rent and leases page describes the rent-setting assignment, its timescale and its fee. The glossary entries valeur locative and pas-de-porte complement this article. On the same theme: Occupation indemnity for a dwelling: rent, surcharge and income cap and Rental value: advance rent and turnover rent. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
A rent for land, farm buildings or a dwelling to fix or to challenge?
I split the rent between dwelling, farm buildings and land, within the limits of the prefectoral orders, and establish the rental value of each element with references.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
