Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 03.01.1975 795 AI generated

Tenant's termination of lease for owner's employee residence rejected; court upheld original decision.

Case Number Helsingin HO 03.01.1975 795
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the tenant's appeal against the Housing Court's decision to reject his termination of the lease. The tenant argued he needed the apartment for his employee's residence, but the Housing Court found alternative arrangements possible without terminating the contract. Consequently, the court of appeal refused to overturn the original ruling that the lease remained valid.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Housing Act 1970; Housing Court Act 1970: A landlord may terminate a tenancy for personal use by an employee only if no other suitable accommodation is available; the court must verify the necessity of termination before dismissing the tenant's claim.

Keywords

AI generated
housing lease termination employee residence requirement tenant appeal dismissal Housing Court Act 1970 alternative accommodation availability landlord necessity test residential tenancy dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Housing Act 1970
Housing Court Act 1970
AI generated
appeal_1976_helsinki__224
Court allows termination of tenancy contract when landlord terminates due to need for housekeeper's quarters.
appeal_1975_helsinki__209
Tenant's eviction claim dismissed because lease continued after employment ended due to lack of evidence.
appeal_1984_helsinki__226
Landlord's failure to occupy rented unit after termination prevents tenant from claiming damages for loss of housing.
appeal_1975_helsinki__165
Tenant's eviction appeal dismissed because landlord failed to prove health reasons for needing the unit.
kko-precedent_1992_14
Supreme Court allows landlord to terminate tenancy for maintenance work use under Housing Lease Act s. 53.3.

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 on B:tä vastaan ajamassaan kanteessa Hyvinkään KO:ssa kertonut, että hän oli 27.2.1974 irtisanonut B:lle vuokraamansa huoneistoa koskevan vuokrasopimuksen päättymään, koska hän tarvitsi huoneiston neljä asuinhuoneistoa käsittävän talonsa talonmiehen asunnoksi. Sen vuoksi A on vaatinut, että B:n vuokrasuhde todettaisiin lakanneeksi ja B velvoitettaisiin muuttamaan.

AO on päätöksessään 6.5.1974 lausunut, että ko. talon talonmiehen tehtävien suorittaminen oli katsottava mahdolliseksi järjestää muutoinkin kuin irtisanomalla B:n kanssa tehty vuokrasopimus, eikä B:n hallitsemaa huoneistoa siten tarvittu A:n työntekijän käyttöön. Tämän vuoksi KO hylkäsi kanteen.

A haki muutosta.

HO: Ei muutosta.

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

ES.