Facts
The case concerns the protection against termination in the rental of residential and commercial premises. The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen had decided that the object rented by the plaintiff was a hobby room that could not be qualified as a commercial premises within the meaning of the law. Therefore, the rented premises are not subject to the protective provisions of the Federal Act on the Rental and Lease Agreement (BMM) or the new tenancy law.
The plaintiff appealed against this judgment and argued that, in the opinion of the authors LACHAT/STOLL, the term "commercial premises" should be interpreted extensively and a restriction to premises used solely for profit-making activities should be rejected.
Considerations
The Federal Court found that the same criteria for the interpretation of the term "commercial premises" are decisive under both the old and the new law. According to the case law in BGE 113 II 413, the term should be interpreted broadly and includes all premises that actually contribute to the tenant's ability to develop his or her personality in private or economic terms.
The Federal Court further stated that for the qualification as commercial premises, it does not matter whether an economic purpose is pursued in the premises.…