Inspection Association (NPO) / Chairman, Organization for the Promotion of Distribution of Vacant Houses / Former Director, Japan Association of Lawyers for Arbitration ADR
Born in 1948 in Hiroshima Prefecture. In 2004, he founded the Japan Housing Performance Inspection Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to solving housing problems. He advises on contractual issues such as subleases, deposits and guarantees, and victim groups, and negotiates and discusses with relevant government agencies and related companies.
Q. After moving into a room I liked, I found out there was a nuisance facility in the neighborhood. When I asked the agent about the lack of prior notice, he insisted that it was not a material fact that needed to be disclosed. I am not convinced.
A. A contractual provision that states that a tenant will be evicted immediately if he/she fails to pay rent for even one month is not clearly invalid. However, depending on the law, it may be considered a provision that is unilaterally prejudicial to the interests of the tenant.
One of the factors to be considered is whether or not the clause violates the “mandatory provisions” of the Japanese law (Land and House Lease Law).
The “mandatory provisions” are defined as provisions that are invalid even if they are favorable to the landlord. Since the Japanese law does not allow rent arrears, the provisions of the consultation are valid under this law.
The second question is whether the content of the lease is contrary to public order and morality.
Public order and morals” are defined as “ethical norms necessary to maintain the general order of modern society. The question is whether the content of the contract is so unreasonable as to destroy the social order. This is an area where people have different judgments, but in general it cannot be said that the level is so high that it is not a “violation of public order and morals”.