Adjustment of premises to a lessee’s activities should not be considered as deterioration of the premises in cases where any reconstructions can be detached and removed without causing partial loss of functionality or decrease of economic value of the premises as an immovable leased object. On 16 November 2007, the Supreme Court of Lithuania in its ruling in civil case No 3K-3-493/2007 UAB Colibri v UAB Stilsena has stated that deterioration of a leased thing as defined in the Civil Code means the decrease of value or partial loss of functionality of such thing as a result of which further use of the thing according to its target purpose loses its economic value existing before deterioration. If the state of a thing gets worse due to its natural wear and tear or by virtue of its normal use in conformity with the provisions of the lease agreement, then a lessee is not obliged to indemnify the inflicted damages to a lessor, unless otherwise prescribed in the lease agreement. In such cases, a lessor should be aware of and foresee the deterioration of a leased thing. Thus a lessor may not reasonably expect any redress of damages for deterioration of a thing if the right to claim indemnification damages is not vested with him under agreement. The claimant consented to the transfer of the premises for commercial activities and the lease agreement provided for no obligations on the part of the lessee to disassemble the equipment installed in the premises and to return the premises in the initial state. Thus the equipment disassembling works performed at the lessor’s cost, as specified by the latter, are not deemed the damages of the claimant as these costs of the lessor, unless otherwise agreed by the parties in the lease agreement, had to be included in the rental.

      The valuator of real estate who performs mass valuation has the right but not the obligation to consider the value of real estate established through individual valuation of real estate as a tax value. On 25 October 2007, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in its ruling in administrative case No A3-971-07 N.M. v State enterprise Centre of Registers has stated that based on legal rules it is presumed that the legislator sought for payment of the real estate tax on the possibly most precise average market value of property and therefore, apart from mass valuation of real estate, provided for the possibility of individual valuation of real estate. The mentioned legal rules also provide that a property valuator, i.e. the property valuating company in charge of the Real Estate Cadastre and Real Estate Register, is granted the right but not the obligation to consider the value of real estate established through individual valuation of real estate as a tax value.