Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 20.06.1984 226 AI generated

Landlord's failure to occupy rented unit after termination prevents tenant from claiming damages for loss of housing.

Case Number Helsingin HO 20.06.1984 226
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the tenant's claim for damages after the landlord terminated the lease but failed to occupy the unit for personal use. Although the landlord initially cited personal occupancy as the reason for termination, they subsequently sold the property instead. The court ruled that without actual personal occupation by the landlord, the specific condition justifying the termination and the resulting damages claim were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vuosikymmenen 1974 vuokralain 1 luku; 1 luvun 1 §: Jos vuokranantaja irtisanoo vuokrasopimuksen väitellen tarvitsevansa asunnon omaan käyttöönsä, mutta ei ota sitä omaksi käyttöön, ei vuokralainen voi vaatia vahingonkorvausta asunnon puuttumisesta.

Keywords

AI generated
lease termination personal occupancy damages claim housing loss landlord duty

Cited Legislation

AI generated
1 luku vuokralain 1974
AI generated
kko-precedent_2005_102
Tenant must pay landlord lost rent for May after eviction and delayed re-letting of apartment.
appeal_1975_helsinki__184
Tenant successfully terminated lease due to lack of adequate housing conditions for himself and child.
appeal_1975_helsinki__795
Tenant's termination of lease for owner's employee residence rejected; court upheld original decision.
appeal_1976_helsinki__148
Tenant's eviction upheld because brother's disruptive conduct was deemed significant despite tenant's own efforts to stop it.
appeal_1976_helsinki__224
Court allows termination of tenancy contract when landlord terminates due to need for housekeeper's quarters.

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

A oli irtisanonut asuinhuoneiston vuokrasopimuksen B:ltä ilmoittaen perusteeksi tarvitsevansa huoneiston omaan käyttöönsä asuntona. B oli velvoitettu muuttamaan huoneistosta. Sittemmin A ei kuitenkaan ollut ottanut huoneistoa omaan käyttöönsä, vaan hän oli myynyt sen. B:n ei ollut onnistunut hankkia itselleen toista asuntoa. A velvoitettiin suorittamaan B:lle vahingonkorvausta.

Läsnä: Mäkelä, Vallinrinne, Halme (apuj.),

Pohjola (asiant.) ja Kaarni (asiant.) Esittelijä: Nikolainen

Lainvoimainen