Section 1403 — Habitation — duration and transfer
Statutory text (Thai original)
สิทธิอาศัยนั้น ท่านว่าจะก่อให้เกิดโดยมีกำหนดเวลา หรือตลอดชีวิตของผู้อาศัยก็ได้ถ้าไม่มีกำหนดเวลา ท่านว่าสิทธินั้นจะเลิกเสียในเวลาใด ๆ ก็ได้ แต่ต้องบอกล่วงหน้าแก่ผู้อาศัยตามสมควรถ้าให้สิทธิอาศัยโดยมีกำหนดเวลา กำหนดนั้นท่านมิให้เกินสามสิบปี ถ้ากำหนดไว้นานกว่านั้น ให้ลดลงมาเป็นสามสิบปี การให้สิทธิอาศัยจะต่ออายุก็ได้ แต่ต้องกำหนดเวลาไม่เกินสามสิบปีนับแต่วันทำต่อ
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษ
A right of habitation may be created either for a period of time or for the life of the grantee. If no time has been fixed, such right may be terminated at any time by giving reasonable notice to the grantee. If it is granted for a period of time, the period may not exceed thirty years; if a longer period is stipulated, it shall be reduced to thirty years. The grant may be renewed for a period not exceeding thirty years from the time of renewal.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 1403 has two important rules. First, the personal nature of habitation: the right cannot be sold, mortgaged, or passed to heirs — it dies with the holder. Second, if no period is stated in the registration, the maximum is 30 years (different from usufruct, which can be "for life" by default). SC decision 8015/2551 confirmed that a habitation purportedly granted to an entity (rather than a natural person) is void from the start.
Why this matters in practice
Lawyers: the 30-year cap and non-transferable nature make this right very different from a usufruct; unlike usufruct, the habitation holder cannot rent out the building to others. Laypersons: if someone gave you the right to live in their house, that right is yours alone and ends when you die — your heirs cannot inherit it, and you cannot sell or transfer it to anyone else.
Legislative history
Part of the original Civil and Commercial Code codification; no major subsequent amendment.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4096/2530 (1987)
In a habitation/ejectment case, the prohibition on factual appeals depends on the actual rental value of the property at filing, not the damages claimed.
The plaintiff sued to eject the defendant from a building and claimed damages of 20,000 baht per month; since the claim for damages was ancillary to the ejectment action and the building's rent value was under 2,000 baht per month at the time of filing, the appeal on questions of fact was barred by the Civil Procedure Code's monetary threshold.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.