Facts
A. (tenant, appellant) acquired on February 28, 2014 an object designated as "mobile home/chalet no. x" on the C. campsite in U. from the former owners. B. (landlord, respondent) rented to A. as of January 1, 2014 the "plot no. x" with an area of 143 m2 at an annual rent of CHF 2,431.-. On June 21, 2018, A. and other tenants complained about the electricity price charged. By letter dated June 25, 2018, B. terminated the lease as of December 31, 2018.
A. contested the termination with the Conciliation Authority for Rent and Lease Thal-Gäu. By decision of July 6, 2018, the Conciliation Authority did not enter into the matter due to lack of jurisdiction, as it did not involve a lease of residential or commercial premises. On November 16, 2018, A. filed another "action for a declaration of the nullity of the termination" with the Conciliation Authority, as B. had not terminated the lease with a form pursuant to Art. 266l para. 2 CO. By decision of November 20, 2018, the Conciliation Authority also did not enter into this action due to lack of jurisdiction.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court decided that the parity conciliation authority in the pure conciliation procedure must in principle start from the factual allegations of the plaintiff. If it becomes apparent that the conciliation authority is obviously not materially competent, it may terminate the proceedings by a non-entry decision.
The Federal Supreme Court justifies this by stating that the…