Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 07.04.1976 57 AI generated

Tenant's appeal against termination rejected due to lack of agreed termination date under HVL 5.

Case Number Helsingin HO 07.04.1976 57
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 termination of the lease agreement. The tenant argued that the termination was invalid because it occurred outside the legal period and without a mutually agreed termination date. The court held that since no specific agreed date existed, the termination was lawful under the relevant housing law provisions, and the tenant failed to prove otherwise.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

HVL 5 §; HVL 10 §: A tenant cannot successfully appeal a lease termination if the landlord terminated the agreement within the statutory period and no mutually agreed termination date was established.

Keywords

AI generated
lease termination appeal agreed termination date statutory termination period housing law provisions tenant's defense rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
HVL 5 §
HO: Koska ei ollut näytetty sovitun erityisestä irtisanomispäivästä, HO, ottaen huomioon HVL 5 §:n säännöksen katsoi, ettei ollut syytä muuttaa AO:n tuomion lopputulosta.
HVL 10 §
AI generated
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__161
Landlord's lease termination without notice date is void under Housing Lease Act Section 34.
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_1979_eastern-finland__178
Tenant's appeal to extend move-out date rejected; eviction ground deemed established by court.
appeal_1975_helsinki__130
Tenant's eviction claim dismissed for lack of evidence on necessity and breach of lease terms.

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

B haki muutosta.

HO: Koska ei ollut näytetty sovitun erityisestä irtisanomispäivästä, HO, ottaen huomioon HVL 5 §:n säännöksen katsoi, ettei ollut syytä muuttaa AO:n tuomion lopputulosta.

Komm: Vuokralainen säilytti oikeutensa kiistää irtisanomisen peruste, kun hän oli katsonut, ettei irtisanominen ollut tapahtunut laillisena aikana. Kantajan oli näytettävä peruste, vaikka irtisanomista ei ollut vastustettu.

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

ES.