Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 05.12.1979 401 AI generated

Tenant's temporary work after employment ended does not justify continued tenancy without new agreement.

Case Number Helsingin HO 05.12.1979 401
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 B's appeal against the Housing Authority's termination of the tenancy agreement. Although B continued working temporarily at the employer's restaurant after the employment relationship ended on May 9, 1979, the court found this did not create a new tenancy basis. Consequently, the tenancy was deemed to have terminated on June 15, 1979, as no separate agreement existed to extend the tenancy beyond the employment end date.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 1 of the Tenancy Act 1979; Section 2 of the Tenancy Act 1979: Temporary employment after the termination of a main employment contract does not automatically justify the continuation of a tenancy agreement without a separate agreement.

Keywords

AI generated
tenancy termination employment relationship end temporary work housing authority separate agreement requirement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 1 of the Tenancy Act 1979
Section 2 of the Tenancy Act 1979
AI generated
kko-precedent_1990_156
Supreme Court orders employer to pay damages for failing to offer re-employment under Labor Code 42a.
appeal_1977_helsinki__1066
Tenant eviction based on employment contract termination is invalid if no actual employment relationship existed.
labour_2022_69
Court rules truck driver's contract applies to construction sector unless transport is separate business.
appeal_1976_helsinki__952
Court dismisses tenant's appeal for vacation rental termination, ruling statutory protections do not apply to such short-term leases.
appeal_1975_helsinki__169
Tenant's claim for lease termination due to employer housing needs dismissed as no employment relationship existed.

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

Osuukunta A:n kanteesta Helsingin AO on tuomiossaan 6.9.1979 lausunut, että A:n ja B:n väliseen työsopimukseen perustuvan työsuhdeasunnon vuokrasopimus oli irtisanomisen johdosta päättynyt 15.6.1979. Kun irtisanominen oli toimitettu laillisesti AO on velvoittanut B:n muuttamaan.

B haki muutosta.

HO: B:n työsuhde oli päättynyt 9.5.1979 ja osuuskunta oli sen perusteella irtisanonut vuokrasopimuksen päättymään 15.6.1979. Se seikka, että B oli sanotun työsuhteen päättymisen jälkeenkin ollut tilapäisesti töissä A:n ravintoloissa, ei oikeuttanut häntä ilman eri sopimusta jatkamaan huoneistoon liittyvää vuokrasuhdetta. Tämän vuoksi HO katsoi, ettei ollut syytä muuttaa AO:n tuomion lopputulosta.

Läsnä: Poukka - Mäkelä - Ritola - Pohjola - Kaarni

ES.