Automatic Renewal of a Lease in Thailand: the 30-Year Lease Renewal Ruling and What Happens After It

Reviewed by Wichuda Atthamethakon, LL.M., Thai Bar Licence 3149/2556, for ThaiLawOnline, a Thai law firm acting for foreigners since 2006.

Last reviewed: 19 September 2026. The law on this page was read in Thai against the Civil and Commercial Code (sections 172, 173, 193/30, 411, 419, 538, 540, 566, 569, 570, 1410 to 1412, 1417 and 1418) and against the full text of Supreme Court Judgments 4655/2566, 6763/2541, 5277/2540, 545/2532 and 8760/2556. Not verified here: how lower courts have applied 4655/2566 since, and market practice among developers, both of which rest on law-firm reporting. Re-checked on 5 October 2026: Supreme Court decisions 1213/2517 and 4872/2539 read in Thai; the sentence on a landlord’s death no longer says a renewal promise usually fails against heirs, since the outcome turns on whether the tenant knew of the death before accepting. Nothing else re-checked.

In Supreme Court Case No. 4655/2566, the court struck down the Thailand 30 year lease renewal structure known as 30+30+30: a registered 30-year lease signed together with pre-agreed, pre-paid promises of two further 30-year terms. The court held that the renewal clauses circumvented Section 540 of the Civil and Commercial Code and were void. The lease ended at year 30, and the tenant who stayed on became a trespasser paying damages.

Most commentary stops there. This page goes further, because “the renewal is void” is the beginning of the problem, not the end of it. If you hold one of these leases, three questions decide real money: whether your first 30 years is safe, whether the money you pre-paid for years 31 to 90 comes back, and what structure still gives you security beyond a single registered term.

What the Supreme Court decided in Case 4655/2566

The parties signed a 30-year registered lease over land and a house in Phuket in 1990, with the full 30-year rent of 1,500,000 baht paid up front. On the same day, a separate document promised two further 30-year terms and recorded an advance payment of 600,000 baht for each of them. The court found the landlord had received 2,700,000 baht in all. When the lease expired in May 2020, the tenant refused to leave, relying on the renewal promise. The owner sued to evict.

The Supreme Court found that agreeing all three terms at once, with all the money paid in advance and no new rent or conditions for terms that would begin 30 and 60 years later, showed a clear intent by both parties to bypass the 30-year ceiling in Section 540. The renewal clauses were void. The court rejected the argument that the promise survived as a merely personal right between the parties, because that reading would empty Section 540 of its mandatory force. The lease ended on 22 May 2020, the tenant’s continued occupation was a wrongful act, and the court ordered eviction, demolition of the tenant’s buildings, and damages of 30,000 baht per month. Our full English summary of the judgment, with the procedural history and the named judges, is on our case page for Supreme Court Decision 4655/2566.

Section 540 itself is short. A lease of immovable property cannot exceed 30 years; a longer term is cut down to 30. The same section allows renewal on expiry, but each renewal is capped at 30 years from its own date. The court’s point is that a renewal must be a real decision made at renewal time, not a fiction signed and paid for decades in advance.

The only renewal the Code makes automatic is a different thing. Under Section 570, if the tenant stays on after the agreed term and the landlord, knowing it, does not object, the parties are deemed to have made a new lease for no fixed period. That gives little security: either side can end a lease of no fixed period at the end of any rent period on one period’s notice, and never more than two months’ notice is needed (Section 566). In Case 4655/2566 the landlord gave notice to leave when the term ran out, so no such renewal arose.

The law behind this page

English

Section 540

An ordinary fixed-term lease of immovable property is limited to 30 years. Section 540 permits renewal for up to 30 years from renewal. A lease made for a longer term is reduced to 30 years.

Full text

Immovable property may not be let for a period exceeding thirty years. If a contract has been made for a longer period, that period shall be reduced to thirty years. The period of hire referred to above may, on its expiry, be renewed, but the renewal must not exceed thirty years from the date of renewal.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 570

Full text

If, on the expiry of the agreed period of hire, the hirer remains in possession of the property and the letter, knowing this, does not object, the parties are deemed to have made a new contract for an indefinite period.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 538

Any lease of immovable property is unenforceable by action without written evidence signed by the party liable. A lease for more than 3 years, or for the life of the lessee or lessor, must also be made in writing and registered, otherwise it is enforceable only for 3 years.

Full text

A hire of immovable property is not enforceable by action unless there is some written evidence signed by the party liable. If the hire is for more than three years, or for the life of the hirer or of the letter, it is enforceable by action for three years only, unless it is made in writing and registered with the competent official.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 569

Full text

A contract of hire of immovable property is not extinguished by the transfer of ownership of the property hired. The transferee is entitled to the rights and is subject to the duties of the transferor towards the hirer.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 173

Full text

If any part of a juristic act is void, the whole juristic act is void, unless it may be presumed from the circumstances of the case that the parties intended the part which is not void to be separable from the void part.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 172

A void act cannot be ratified, and any interested person may invoke its nullity. If property must be returned, the provisions on undue enrichment (Section 406 onward) apply.

Full text

A void act cannot be ratified, and its nullity may be alleged by any interested person. The return of property arising from a void act shall be governed by the provisions on undue enrichment of this Code.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 419

Full text

No action for undue enrichment may be brought after one year from the time the injured party knew of his right to restitution, or after ten years from the time the right arose.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 411

Full text

A person who has performed an act in performance of an obligation in contravention of a legal prohibition or of good morals cannot claim restitution of the property.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

ไทย

มาตรา 540

ข้อความเต็ม

อันอสังหาริมทรัพย์ ท่านห้ามมิให้เช่ากันเป็นกำหนดเวลาเกินกว่าสามสิบปี ถ้าได้ทำสัญญากันไว้เป็นกำหนดเวลานานกว่านั้น ท่านก็ให้ลดลงมาเป็นสามสิบปี อนึ่ง กำหนดเวลาเช่าดังกล่าวมานี้ เมื่อสิ้นลงแล้วจะต่อสัญญาอีกก็ได้ แต่ต้องอย่าให้เกินสามสิบปีนับแต่วันต่อสัญญา

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 570

ข้อความเต็ม

ในเมื่อสิ้นกำหนดเวลาเช่าซึ่งได้ตกลงกันไว้นั้น ถ้าผู้เช่ายังคงครองทรัพย์สินอยู่ และผู้ให้เช่ารู้ความนั้นแล้วไม่ทักท้วงไซร้ ท่านให้ถือว่าคู่สัญญาเป็นอันได้ทำสัญญาใหม่ต่อไปไม่มีกำหนดเวลา

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 538

ข้อความเต็ม

เช่าอสังหาริมทรัพย์นั้น ถ้ามิได้มีหลักฐานเป็นหนังสืออย่างหนึ่งอย่างใดลงลายมือชื่อฝ่ายที่ต้องรับผิดเป็นสำคัญ ท่านว่าจะฟ้องร้องให้บังคับคดีหาได้ไม่ ถ้าเช่ามีกำหนดกว่าสามปีขึ้นไป หรือกำหนดตลอดอายุของผู้เช่าหรือผู้ให้เช่าไซร้ หากมิได้ทำเป็นหนังสือและจดทะเบียนต่อพนักงานเจ้าหน้าที่ ท่านว่าการเช่านั้นจะฟ้องร้องให้บังคับคดีได้แต่เพียงสามปี

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 569

ข้อความเต็ม

อันสัญญาเช่าอสังหาริมทรัพย์นั้นย่อมไม่ระงับไป เพราะเหตุโอนกรรมสิทธิ์ทรัพย์สินซึ่งให้เช่า ผู้รับโอนย่อมรับไปทั้งสิทธิและหน้าที่ของผู้โอนซึ่งมีต่อผู้เช่านั้นด้วย

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 173

ข้อความเต็ม

ถ้าส่วนหนึ่งส่วนใดของนิติกรรมเป็นโมฆะ นิติกรรมนั้นย่อมตกเป็นโมฆะทั้งสิ้น เว้นแต่จะพึงสันนิษฐานได้โดยพฤติการณ์แห่งกรณีว่า คู่กรณีเจตนาจะให้ส่วนที่ไม่เป็นโมฆะนั้นแยกออกจากส่วนที่เป็นโมฆะได้

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 172

ข้อความเต็ม

โมฆะกรรมนั้นไม่อาจให้สัตยาบันแก่กันได้ และผู้มีส่วนได้เสียคนหนึ่งคนใดจะยกความเสียเปล่าแห่งโมฆะกรรมขึ้นกล่าวอ้างก็ได้ถ้าจะต้องคืนทรัพย์สินอันเกิดจากโมฆะกรรม ให้นำบทบัญญัติว่าด้วยลาภมิควรได้แห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้มาใช้บังคับ

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 419

ข้อความเต็ม

ในเรื่องลาภมิควรได้นั้น ท่านห้ามมิให้ฟ้องคดีเมื่อพ้นกำหนดปีหนึ่งนับแต่เวลาที่ฝ่ายผู้เสียหายรู้ว่าตนมีสิทธิเรียกคืน หรือเมื่อพ้นสิบปีนับแต่เวลาที่สิทธินั้นได้มีขึ้น

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 411

ข้อความเต็ม

บุคคลใดได้กระทำการเพื่อชำระหนี้ เป็นการอันฝ่าฝืนข้อห้ามตามกฎหมายหรือศีลธรรมอันดี ท่านว่าบุคคลนั้นหาอาจจะเรียกร้องคืนทรัพย์ได้ไม่

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

Français

Article 540

Un immeuble ne peut être donné à bail pour une durée excédant trente ans. Si le contrat a été conclu pour une durée plus longue, celle-ci est réduite à trente ans. La durée du bail ci-dessus mentionnée peut, à son expiration, être renouvelée, mais sans excéder trente ans à compter du jour du renouvellement.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 570

Si, à l'expiration du bail, le locataire reste en possession du bien et que le bailleur, le sachant, ne s'y oppose pas, les parties sont réputées avoir conclu un nouveau bail à durée indéterminée.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 538

Le louage d'un immeuble ne peut donner lieu à une action en exécution en justice s'il n'existe aucun écrit, de quelque nature que ce soit, signé par la partie tenue. Si le louage est conclu pour une durée supérieure à trois ans, ou pour la durée de la vie du preneur ou du bailleur, et qu'il n'a pas été fait par écrit et enregistré auprès de l'officier compétent, il ne peut donner lieu à une action en exécution que pour trois ans.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 569

Le bail d'un immeuble ne prend pas fin du fait du transfert de la propriété du bien loué. L'acquéreur reprend à la fois les droits et les obligations du cédant envers le preneur.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 173

Si une partie d'un acte juridique est nulle, l'acte entier est nul, sauf s'il peut être présumé, selon les circonstances, que les parties entendaient séparer la partie valable de la partie nulle.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 172

Un acte nul ne peut être confirmé, et toute personne intéressée peut invoquer sa nullité. La restitution des biens issus d'un acte nul est régie par les règles de l'enrichissement sans cause.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 419

L'action en enrichissement sans cause se prescrit par un an à compter du jour où la partie appauvrie a connu son droit à restitution, ou par dix ans à compter de la naissance de ce droit.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 411

Celui qui a exécuté une prestation en paiement d'une dette en violation d'une interdiction légale ou des bonnes mœurs ne peut en réclamer la restitution.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Supreme Court decisions

• 4655/2566 (2023): A 30+30+30 Lease Paid Up Front: the Renewal Promise Is Void, the First 30 Years Stand
• 6763/2541 (1998): A Promise to Renew a Lease Is a Personal Right and Does Not Bind a Later Transferee of the Land
• 1213/2517 (1974): Landlord’s death known before acceptance of a renewal promise
• 4872/2539 (1996): Renewal against an heir: knowledge of death and acceptance

Sources

• Civil and Commercial Code, Office of the Council of State, retrieved 31 October 2026
• deka.supremecourt.or.th, Supreme Court of Thailand decisions database (copy held in our library), retrieved 19 February 2026

Is the first 30 years of my lease still valid?

Yes, if it was registered, and here is the legal reason nobody spells out. Section 173 of the Civil and Commercial Code provides that where part of a juristic act is void, the whole act is void, unless the circumstances allow the assumption that the parties intended the valid part to stand on its own. A registered 30-year lease is exactly the bargain Section 540 permits. In Case 4655/2566 the first term had run its full course and nobody questioned it; the fight was only about the renewals. The structure of the decision follows the severability logic: the void renewal clauses fell away, and the registered term produced its normal effects until its own expiry date.

Two other sections do the protective work during those 30 years. Section 538 makes a lease over three years enforceable beyond year three only if it is in writing and registered at the Land Office, which is why registration is not paperwork but the right itself. Section 569 provides that a transfer of the property does not extinguish a registered lease: a buyer of the land takes it subject to your lease. What the buyer does not inherit is the seller’s personal promise to renew. The Supreme Court confirmed that limit in Decision 6763/2541: a renewal promise does not bind a new owner of the land. If your landlord sells, the registered years survive and the renewal promise does not bind the buyer. If your landlord dies, the registered years survive too, but whether a renewal promise you had not yet accepted binds the heirs turns on whether you knew of the death when you accepted it (sections 169 and 360): in Decision 1213/2517 the tenant knew and the heirs were not bound; in Decision 4872/2539 the tenant did not know and the promise bound the person who took the property.

Can I recover money I pre-paid for years 31 to 90?

This is the question the 2026 commentary skips, and the honest answer is that the Code gives you a route and two serious hazards on it.

The route: Section 172 paragraph 2 provides that restitution of what was given under a void act is governed by the provisions on undue enrichment, Sections 406 and following. Money paid for renewal terms that never legally existed is money paid without a legal ground. In Case 4655/2566 itself, the tenant had paid 1,200,000 baht for the two void terms; the Supreme Court decided the eviction and the counterclaim for renewal, and the judgment as reported does not order the money returned, because that was not the claim before it. The money did count for something: in fixing the tenant’s damages for staying on, the Supreme Court took into account the rent he had already paid and cut the award from the Court of Appeal’s 50,000 baht a month to 30,000.

The first hazard is time. Section 419 bars an undue enrichment claim one year after the injured party became aware of the right to restitution, and in any event ten years after the right accrued. When does that one year start for a void renewal prepayment: when you signed, when you learned of the ruling, or when the landlord refuses to renew at year 30? No published Supreme Court decision that we have located answers that for this situation. A cautious lessee treats the clock as possibly already running, because waiting until year 31 to ask may be decades too late.

There is a second half to that hazard, and it runs the other way. Section 419 only bites if the claim is characterised as undue enrichment in the first place. In Decision 545/2532 the Supreme Court held in terms that money which has to be returned because a contract was terminated is not undue enrichment, and that the Section 419 limitation cannot be applied to it. In Decision 8760/2556 it held that where a payment is not undue enrichment and no limitation provision governs the case specifically, the ordinary ten-year period under Section 193/30 applies instead. So the one-year clock is the worst case rather than the only case: on a different characterisation of the same payment the period is ten years. That is a reason to take advice early, not a reason to assume the claim is already dead.

The second hazard is Section 411: a person who performs an act whose purpose is contrary to a legal prohibition or good morals cannot demand restitution. A court could reason that paying up front to circumvent Section 540 is exactly such a performance. It could also reason the other way, that an ordinary buyer who signed what a developer put in front of them was not pursuing an unlawful purpose in the sense of Section 411. We have found no Supreme Court decision applying Section 411 to renewal prepayments, so nobody can honestly promise you the money back, and nobody should tell you it is lost either. What you can do is act early, document what you paid and why, and get advice on your specific contract. This is precisely the situation our consultation service exists for.

When can a renewal promise still be enforced?

The ruling does not make every long lease arrangement worthless, and one doctrine cuts the other way. Thai courts have long recognised the special reciprocal contract, in Thai สัญญาต่างตอบแทนพิเศษยิ่งกว่าสัญญาเช่าธรรมดา, a contract that is more than an ordinary lease because the tenant gave the landlord something substantial beyond rent, most typically by constructing buildings that become the landlord’s property. Where that doctrine applies, courts have enforced obligations that ordinary lease rules would not carry, and the agreement binds even heirs in ways an ordinary renewal promise does not. We explain the case law on our page about reciprocal agreements under Thai law.

The limits matter as much as the doctrine. In Decision 5277/2540 the lease itself reserved the landlord’s right to refuse renewal, and the Supreme Court held that renewal under that clause required a new contract actually made, not one arising by operation of law, and Decision 6763/2541 kept renewal promises from binding land buyers. Case 4655/2566 now adds the sharpest limit: where the whole arrangement is a device to exceed 30 years, the court will not save it under any label. The tenant in that case had built a house and a parking building, and it did not help him. Whether a genuine investment-for-tenure bargain, made without the pre-paid 90-year architecture, still supports enforceable renewal obligations is exactly the kind of question that needs a lawyer reading your documents, not a general article.

What are courts doing with 30+30+30 leases in 2026?

The decision carries the number 4655/2566, placing it in B.E. 2566, which is 2023, and it spread through the market during 2025 as firms reported it. By 2026, law firm reporting describes the precedent as widely circulated and applied by lower courts in new disputes. Developers in lease-heavy markets have moved their standard documents away from pre-agreed renewal chains, and buyers are renegotiating. We updated this page on 31 August 2026 to reflect that the question we now hear is no longer “is my 90-year lease safe” but “what do I do about the one I already signed”. If a lower court has applied or distinguished 4655/2566 in a case that matters to you, our team can obtain and read the decision; reported lower-court practice is not itself binding precedent in Thailand, and each case turns on its own documents.

What still works instead

Three structures give real security within the law, and we compare them fully on our guide to usufruct vs lease vs superficies.

A registered 30-year lease remains the workhorse. Drafted honestly, it binds any buyer of the land under Section 569 for its full term, can carry a succession clause, and can include a renewal framework that creates a real negotiation at year 30 instead of a void fiction. Beware of anyone still marketing 60 or 90 guaranteed years; our 90-year lease myth page explains why those numbers were never real.

A superficies under Section 1410 gives you ownership of the buildings on land you cannot own. Some published guides state that a superficies is capped at 30 years; that is incomplete. Section 1412 allows a superficies for a fixed period (capped at 30 years through section 1403 paragraph 3), or for the life of the landowner or of the superficiary, and unless the grant says otherwise it is transferable and inheritable (section 1411). The life-term option is what makes it powerful after this ruling. See our superficies guide.

A usufruct under Section 1417 gives possession, use and enjoyment of the property, registrable for a period or for the usufructuary’s life. It does not make you owner of the buildings, which is a point some commentary gets wrong in the other direction; ownership of structures on another’s land is what superficies does. Our usufruct page covers the details, and combinations of a lease with a registered real right are often the practical answer.

Before you sign anything, run the lease through our free Thai lease scanner. It checks the five clauses that most often cause trouble, including exactly the renewal wording this ruling condemned. The full text of the Code sections cited on this page is in our Civil and Commercial Code library.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 4655/2566: full summary

Here is our summary and translation of the decision in English. It is for information purposes only.

Parties: Mrs. S., plaintiff; Mr. R., defendant. Provision: Civil and Commercial Code, Section 540.

Facts. The plaintiff owns land under Certificates of Utilization (N.S.3 Kor.) Nos. 1691 and 1692 and a house originally numbered 75/25, later 159/3. On 10 May 1990 the parties signed a 30-year lease of the land and house for a total rent of 1,500,000 baht, registered on 21 May 1990 and effective from 22 May 1990. The defendant built a parking building and house No. 159/8 on the land. Clause 3 of the lease promised two further 30-year terms if the defendant wished to continue, and a separate document of the same day recorded an advance payment of 600,000 baht for each of those terms, bringing the total received to 2,700,000 baht. After the lease expired on 22 May 2020 the plaintiff demanded that the defendant vacate and demolish his constructions. He refused, claiming 60 more years.

Reasoning. The court found that signing the initial term and both renewals at once, with everything paid up front and no new rent or conditions for terms starting 30 and 60 years later, demonstrated intent by both parties to bypass Section 540. The renewal clauses were void because their purpose violated that section. The court rejected the personal-right argument: enforcing the promise between the parties would defeat the mandatory character of Section 540. The lease therefore ended on 22 May 2020, and the defendant’s continued occupation after notice was a wrongful act.

Result. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal Region 8 on eviction, demolition and dismissal of the counterclaim, and reduced damages from 50,000 to 30,000 baht per month, running from the day after the suit was filed on 12 June 2020 until the defendant vacates. The Court of First Instance, which had ordered the plaintiff to register a renewal, was reversed on appeal. Judges: Thira Benjaratsamiroj, Narong Prachumart, Wayuree Wattanaworalak. Source: Office of the Assistant Judges of the Supreme Court. More lease decisions are collected on our Supreme Court lease decisions page.

Frequently Asked Questions