Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 26.01.1977 1066 AI generated

Tenant eviction based on employment contract termination is invalid if no actual employment relationship existed.

Case Number Helsingin HO 26.01.1977 1066
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 an eviction order issued under Housing Law Section 30. The tenant argued that the eviction was invalid because no actual employment relationship existed between the tenant and the property company, rendering the housing contract termination based on employment grounds inapplicable. The court rejected this claim, holding that the tenant's own admission of the employment relationship's existence and its termination date validated the eviction proceedings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Housing Law Section 30; If a housing contract is terminated based on a non-existent or terminated employment relationship, the eviction order issued under this section is invalid.

Keywords

AI generated
housing law eviction employment relationship termination tenant appeal dismissal housing contract validity Section 30 Housing Law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Housing Law Section 30
AI generated
appeal_1984_helsinki__29
Housing maintenance contract dispute dismissed because tenancy issues fall under housing law, not general contract law.
appeal_1976_helsinki__93
Landlord's appeal dismissed; tenant failed to prove landlord needed unit for employee housing.
appeal_1979_helsinki__15
Tenant loses lease rights by unauthorized transfer; new occupant ordered to vacate without landlord consent.
appeal_1975_helsinki__340
Court of Appeal dismissed appeal because Housing Authority lacked jurisdiction over tenancy dispute.
appeal_1979_helsinki__98
Court rejects tenant eviction claim when new lease arises from prior tenant's abandonment.

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

Kiinteistöyhtiö A:n kanteesta Kirkkonummen KO on päätöksessään 24.8.1976 lausunut, että A oli antanut B:lle vuokralle huoneiston B:n ja osakeyhtiö C:n välistä työsopimukseen perustuvaa työsuhdetta silmälläpitäen ja että työsuhde oli päättynyt 15.3.1976. Vuokrasopimus oli 23.4.1976 laillisesti irtisanottu päättymään 31.5.1976. Sen vuoksi KO on HVL 30 §:n nojalla velvoittanut B:n muuttamaan huoneistosta.

Muutoksenhakemuksessaan B on katsonut, ettei vuokrasuhde ollut päättynyt, koska hän ei ollut ollut työsuhteessa kiinteistöyhtiö A:han eikä HVL 30 §:n määräyksiä niin ollen voitu soveltaa vuokrasuhteeseen.

HO: Ei muutosta.

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

ES.