Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 06.10.1975 340 AI generated

Court of Appeal dismissed appeal because Housing Authority lacked jurisdiction over tenancy dispute.

Case Number Helsingin HO 06.10.1975 340
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal quashed the Housing Authority's order requiring the tenant to vacate the apartment. The Authority had ruled that the tenant remained in the property after the owner's death without a valid lease or employment-based arrangement. The court determined the Housing Authority was the wrong forum because the dispute concerned a tenancy issue rather than a specific statutory matter within its jurisdiction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Housing Act 1975, Section 1; Section 30, Paragraph 1: The Housing Authority lacks jurisdiction to order eviction in disputes arising from tenancy relationships; such matters must be handled by the appropriate civil court.

Keywords

AI generated
Housing Act jurisdiction tenancy dispute resolution eviction order invalidity wrong court authority Housing Authority powers

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Housing Act 1975, Section 1
Housing Act 1975, Section 30, Paragraph 1

Cited Case Law

AI generated
A1978/91
AI generated
appeal_1975_helsinki__82
Appeal dismissed; tenant's claim for eviction failed due to lack of evidence regarding continuous residence and rent arrears.
appeal_1978_helsinki__175
Court rejects tenant's claim that partial eviction of a kitchen and hall constitutes a valid termination of the main lease.
appeal_1976_helsinki__224
Court allows termination of tenancy contract when landlord terminates due to need for housekeeper's quarters.
appeal_1979_helsinki__25
Tenant's lease right transfer upheld; landlord's waiver of appeal invalid due to lack of authority.
appeal_1975_helsinki__164
Tenant's eviction claim dismissed because landlord owns another apartment and failed to prove necessity for the specific unit.

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 lasten kanteesta Helsingin AO on tuomiossaan 29.6.1976 lausunut, että B, joka oli hoitanut A:ta ja tämän taloutta sekä asunut tämän kanssa hänen käyttöönsä vastikkeettomasti luovutetussa huoneistossa, oli jäänyt A:n kuoltua asumaan huoneistoon. Koska kantajat eivät olleet luovuttaneet huoneistoa tai sen osaa B:lle vuokralle työsopimukseen perustuvaa työsuhdetta silmällä pitäen vastiketta vastaan eikä heidän välillään ollut sovittu muustakaan HVL:n mukaisesta vuokrasuhteesta, AO on HVL 1 §:n ja 30 §:n 1 momentin nojalla velvoittanut B:n muuttamaan huoneistosta.

B haki muutosta.

HO: Koska kanteessa ei ollut kysymys huoneenvuokrasuhteesta johtuvasta riita-asiasta eikä AO siten ollut oikea tuomioistuin käsittelemään asiaa, HO kumosi ja poisti AO:n tuomion.

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

Vrt. A1978/91.

ES.