WILLEMSTAD – The Court of First Instance of Curaçao has rejected a landlord’s attempt to increase the monthly rent of a commercial property from XCG 950 to approximately XCG 3,000 and terminate the lease when the tenant refused to accept the increase.
The Court ruled that the landlord had failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that the existing rent was substantially below market value or that rising costs justified such a major increase.
The case concerned a commercial property for which the monthly rent had already been increased in July 2023 from XCG 800 to XCG 950, excluding turnover tax.
The landlord subsequently sought another increase, arguing that the Curaçao real estate market had changed significantly and that comparable properties commanded considerably higher rents. According to the landlord, increasing costs also made it financially impossible to continue renting the property at the existing price.
The landlord wanted the rent increased to XCG 3,000 per month and argued that the tenant had previously agreed to the increase by telephone. If the tenant would not pay the higher amount, the landlord wanted to terminate the lease and use the property itself.
The tenant denied having agreed to the increase and challenged the claim that XCG 950 was significantly below market value.
According to the tenant, the landlord had voluntarily increased the rent from XCG 800 to XCG 950 as recently as July 2023 and apparently considered that amount appropriate at the time.
The Court sided with the tenant on the central issue.
It found that the landlord had provided no adequate evidence supporting the claimed market value. During the hearing, the landlord referred to a December 2025 appraisal that reportedly valued an appropriate monthly rent at more than XCG 3,000. However, the appraisal itself was not submitted to the Court and could therefore not be examined.
The Court also rejected the general argument that Curaçao's real estate market had changed dramatically and that property-related expenses had consequently increased.
While such developments may have occurred, the landlord failed to provide specific information showing what additional costs had actually been incurred and how those costs justified the proposed rent increase.
An attempt to provide additional supporting documents later in the proceedings was also rejected as too late after the tenant objected. The Court found no reason why the evidence could not have been presented earlier.
The Court further found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant had agreed by telephone to the proposed increase.
As a result, the Court concluded that there was no “special circumstance” justifying termination of the commercial lease and rejected the landlord's request to have the property vacated.
The requested increase to approximately XCG 3,000 was also denied.
The tenant will nevertheless have to pay a somewhat higher rent because the Court allowed the inflation adjustment contained in the lease agreement.
Using inflation rates of 3.5 percent for 2023 and 2.6 percent for 2024, the Court calculated the adjusted monthly rent at XCG 1,008.81, excluding turnover tax, effective retroactively from July 1, 2025.
The ruling means the landlord may apply the contractual inflation adjustment but cannot increase the rent to XCG 3,000 on the evidence presented in this case.
The landlord was also ordered to pay XCG 2,000 toward the tenant's legal costs.