Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 27.12.1978 411 AI generated

Tenant's appeal against landlord's dismissal of rent increase claim dismissed due to valid termination rights.

Case Number Helsingin HO 27.12.1978 411
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 ruling that the lease terminated upon the landlord's valid termination of the contract. The lower court found the termination lawful under the relevant housing law, meaning the tenant had no obligation to pay the disputed rent increase. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the original decision, rejecting the tenant's argument that the termination should have been reviewed differently.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Housing Act 49 a §; The court held that a valid termination of the lease contract pursuant to statutory provisions releases the tenant from the obligation to pay rent, thereby dismissing the tenant's claim for a rent increase.

Keywords

AI generated
housing law termination lease contract validity tenant rent obligation appellate court review statutory dismissal rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Housing Act 49 a §
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__130
Tenant's eviction claim dismissed for lack of evidence on necessity and breach of lease terms.
appeal_1975_helsinki__207
Tenant eviction upheld where statutory notice period defaults to calendar month end if not specified.
appeal_1975_helsinki__165
Tenant's eviction appeal dismissed because landlord failed to prove health reasons for needing the unit.
appeal_1978_helsinki__301
Court dismissed tenant's appeal, ruling consecutive fixed-term leases without notice constitute implied termination.

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 tuomiossaan 16.3.1978 lausunut, että irtisanominen oli lainmukainen ja vuokrasuhde oli päättynyt sen perusteella 31.1.1977. B ei niin ollen ollut velvollinen suorittamaan vaadittuja vuokria.

A haki muutosta.

HO: B:llä on ollut mainitun vuokrankorotusvaatimuksen johdosta, vaikka se ei olisi johtanutkaan vuokrankorotukseen, HVL 49 a §:n nojalla oikeus sopimuksen irtisanomiseen. Tämän vuoksi HO katsoi, ettei ollut syytä muuttaa AO:n tuomiota tältä osin.

Läsnä: Poukka - Seppälä - Iirola - Pohjola - Kaarni

ES.