Facts
In this case, it was about the extension of lease agreements that had been terminated by the Allgemeine Baugenossenschaft Zürich (ABZ) because the cooperative wanted to renovate or demolish the residential buildings. The tenants (Dieterle and others) demanded an extension of the lease agreements pursuant to Art. 267a para. 1 CO, as the termination of the agreements would mean an unjustifiable hardship for them and their families.
The Federal Supreme Court had to decide whether the requirements for an extension of the lease agreements were met. To this end, it examined the following aspects:
- Whether the consequences of the change of residence alone already constitute an unjustifiable hardship (E. 3a)
- Whether the tenants have consciously accepted that they can only benefit temporarily from the affordable apartments (E. 3b)
- Whether the community of tenants living in quasi-marital relationships qualifies as a "family" within the meaning of Art. 267a para. 1 CO (E. 3c)
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that there was no unjustifiable hardship within the meaning of Art. 267a para. 1 CO:
The consequences of the change of residence alone do not constitute a hardship, as they are merely postponed, but not eliminated, by an extension of the contract. An extension can only be meaningful if it promises to mitigate the consequences.
The tenants had consciously accepted the impending renovation or demolition of the buildings…