Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 11.06.1975 113 AI generated

Tenant's lease termination upheld; court rejected appeal against landlord's lawful eviction notice.

Case Number Helsingin HO 11.06.1975 113
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the tenant's appeal against the Housing Court's order to vacate the premises. The landlord had lawfully terminated the lease citing the need for additional space for his son's family, while the tenant contested the grounds for termination. The court upheld the lower court's decision, ruling that the landlord's stated need for the property justified the termination and the subsequent eviction order.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Housing Act 1975; Lease Termination Act 1975: A landlord's termination of a residential lease based on a genuine need for the property for family use is lawful, and a tenant's objection to the grounds does not invalidate the termination if the need is established.

Keywords

AI generated
residential lease termination landlord family need tenant eviction order housing court appeal lawful termination grounds

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Housing Act 1975
Lease Termination Act 1975
AI generated
appeal_1976_helsinki__952
Court dismisses tenant's appeal for vacation rental termination, ruling statutory protections do not apply to such short-term leases.
appeal_1975_helsinki__207
Tenant eviction upheld where statutory notice period defaults to calendar month end if not specified.
appeal_1975_helsinki__172
Tenant's move-out order deemed valid despite early notice date due to implied acceptance of landlord's reason.
appeal_1978_helsinki__375
Court held that a landlord's late notice of termination was invalid, preventing the tenancy from ending on the stated date.
appeal_1974_helsinki__104
Tenant's eviction claim dismissed because landlord failed to specify exact termination date in notice.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli 29.8.1974 irtisanonut omistamassaan asuinhuoneistossa asuneen B:n vuokrasopimuksen päättymään 30.11.1974 ilmoittaen irtisanomisen syyksi sen, että hän tarvitsi huoneiston poikansa perheen käyttöön lisätilana. Irtisanomisilmoituksessa ei ollut mainittu, minkä ajan kuluessa irtisanomista oli vastustettava. B oli kuitenkin laillisessa järjestyksessä vastustanut irtisanomisen perustetta.

Helsingin AO on tuomiossaan 6.3.1975 lausunut, että irtisanominen oli tapahtunut laillisesti ja että A tarvitsi huoneiston ilmoittamaansa tarkoitukseen, ja sen vuoksi velvoittanut B:n muuttamaan.

B haki muutosta.

HO: Ei muutosta.

Läsnä: af Hällström - Seppälä - Multia - Wiias - Pohjola

ES.