Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 23.06.1976 93 AI generated

Landlord's appeal dismissed; tenant failed to prove landlord needed unit for employee housing.

Case Number Helsingin HO 23.06.1976 93
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 landlord's appeal against the lower court's decision to reject the tenant's claim for termination of the lease. The landlord argued the unit was needed for a manager's residence, but the lower court found the landlord failed to prove this necessity. Consequently, the court upheld the original ruling that the lease remained in force.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Asuntolaki 1970; 10 §: If a landlord terminates a lease claiming the unit is needed for a specific purpose, they must prove that need; failure to do so means the termination is invalid.

Keywords

AI generated
lease termination landlord necessity employee housing burden of proof residential lease court of appeal housing law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Asuntolaki 1970 10 §
AI generated
appeal_1975_helsinki__165
Tenant's eviction appeal dismissed because landlord failed to prove health reasons for needing the unit.
appeal_1974_helsinki__105
Court dismissed tenant eviction claim because landlord failed to prove specific building portion needed for their own residence.
appeal_1976_helsinki__53
Tenant's claim for lease termination due to employer's need for housing was dismissed as evidence was insufficient.
appeal_1975_helsinki__130
Tenant's eviction claim dismissed for lack of evidence on necessity and breach of lease terms.
appeal_1975_helsinki__215
Tenant eviction for redevelopment denied due to lack of official building permit and necessity proof.

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

Asuntoyhtiö A on vuokralaistaan B:tä vastaan Helsingin AO:ssa ajamassaan kanteessa kertonut, että se oli irtisanonut heidän välisensä vuokrasopimuksen ilmoittaen irtisanomisen perusteeksi, että huoneisto tarvittiin yhtiön huoltomieheksi valittavan työntekijän käyttöön asuntona. Sen vuoksi A on vaatinut, että vuokrasuhde todettaisiin lakanneeksi.

AO on tuomiossaan 26.1.1976 katsonut jääneen näyttämättä, että yhtiö tarvitsisi huoneiston kanteessa ilmoittamaansa tarkoitukseen, ja hylännyt kanteen.

A haki muutosta.

HO: Ei muutosta.

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

Eri mieltä oleva jäsen Wiias katsoi kanteen toteennäytetyksi.

ES.