Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 19.01.1977 418 AI generated

Tenant's termination claim dismissed because they failed to prove the deceased estate needed the unit for residence.

Case Number Helsingin HO 19.01.1977 418
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 lower court's rejection of their termination claim. The tenant had initially terminated the lease based on a different ground than the one used in the original proceedings. The court ruled that by accepting the estate's termination reason, the tenant became obligated to prove the estate's actual need for the unit as a residence, which they failed to demonstrate.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

HVL 34 § 2 mom; A tenant who accepts a termination ground based on the deceased estate's need for the unit must prove that need exists; failure to do so results in dismissal of the termination claim.

Keywords

AI generated
lease termination deceased estate residence need burden of proof tenant obligations HVL 34 court of appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
HVL 34 § 2 mom
AI generated
appeal_1976_helsinki__159
Tenant's lease termination claim rejected due to failure to prove landlord's close relative needed the unit.
appeal_1975_helsinki__175
Tenant's failure to prove residential need for premises after terminating lease prevents eviction order.
appeal_1974_helsinki__44
Appeal court remands case to lower court for proper service of all heirs in inheritance dispute.
appeal_1974_helsinki__123
Tenant's appeal dismissed because landlord failed to challenge termination grounds within three months, rendering the termination ineffective under Housing Law.
appeal_1975_helsinki__165
Tenant's eviction appeal dismissed because landlord failed to prove health reasons for needing the 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

AO on tuomiollaan 26.8.1976, koska A oli irtisanoessaan B:n vuokrasopimuksen ilmoittanut tarvitsevansa huoneiston vuokranantajan eli siis omaan käyttöönsä ja esittänyt siten toisen perusteen irtisanomiselle kuin sen, jonka nojalla juttua AO:ssa ajettiin, HVL 34 §:n 2 mom. nojalla hylännyt kanteen.

A haki muutosta.

HO: Koska A hyväksymällä kuolinpesän osakkaiden suorittaman irtisanomisen perusteen oli tullut velvolliseksi selvittämään heidän asunnontarpeensa ja koska oli jäänyt näyttämättä, että kuolinpesän osakkaat tarvitsisivat huoneiston omaan käyttöönsä asuntona, kanne hylättiin.

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

ES.