Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 08.10.1975 161 AI generated

Landlord's lease termination without notice date is void under Housing Lease Act Section 34.

Case Number Helsingin HO 08.10.1975 161
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 landlord's order to vacate the premises. The landlord terminated the tenancy citing the need for his son's use but failed to specify the termination date in the written notice. Consequently, the court ruled the termination void under Section 34 of the Housing Lease Act because the required notice period could not be calculated without a stated end date.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Housing Lease Act Section 34; A lease termination is void if the notice does not specify the date of termination, rendering the required notice period uncalculable.

Keywords

AI generated
housing lease termination notice period calculation void termination written notice requirements tenant eviction order

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Housing Lease Act Section 34
AI generated
appeal_1980_helsinki__423
Tenant's death bars subtenant's claim to annul landlord's termination due to lack of procedural guidance.
appeal_1975_helsinki__165
Tenant's eviction appeal dismissed because landlord failed to prove health reasons for needing the unit.
appeal_1975_helsinki__67
Tenant's appeal against lawful termination for nuisance and structural issues was dismissed by the court of appeal.
appeal_1975_helsinki__130
Tenant's eviction claim dismissed for lack of evidence on necessity and breach of lease terms.
appeal_1976_helsinki__57
Tenant's appeal against termination rejected due to lack of agreed termination date under HVL 5.

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:n kanteesta Helsingin AO on tuomiossaan 26.2.1975 lausunut, että A oli kirjallisesti irtisanonut omistamassaan huoneistossa vuokrasopimuksen nojalla asuneen B:n vuokrasuhteen päättymään ilmoittaen irtisanomisen syyksi sen, että hän tarvitsi huoneiston poikansa käyttöön. Irtisanomisilmoituksessa ei ollut mainittu vuokrasuhteen päättymisajankohtaa. AO on katsonut irtisanomisen tapahtuneen laillisesti ja velvoittanut B:n muuttamaan.

B haki muutosta.

HO: Koska A irtisanoessaan B:n vuokrasuhteen ei ole irtisanomisilmoituksessa maininnut vuokrasuhteen päättymisajankohtaa, irtisanominen on HVL 34 §:n 2 mom. mukaan mitätön.

Sen vuoksi HO hylkäsi kanteen.

Läsnä: af Hällström - Virtamo - Lakovaara - Wiias - Pohjola

ES.