Facts
A., B. and Mrs. C. are co-owners of three parcels of land. Their mother, Mrs. D., has the usufruct over these properties. By an agricultural lease agreement dated 26 February 1985, Mrs. D. leased the exploited domain on these three parcels, including fields, a pasture, an apartment, and a farm building, to K., effective 1 May 1985. The agreement, initially for a term of six years, was tacitly renewed thereafter. On 2 May 1986, K. married P. and the couple moved into the aforementioned apartment.
On 11 May 1994, B., acting on behalf of his mother, terminated the agricultural lease agreement effective 1 May 1997. As the tenant and his family did not vacate the premises upon expiration of the lease, A., B., Mrs. C. and Mrs. D. filed an eviction request against K. on 2 May 1997.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal partially upholds the appeal, annuls the contested judgment, and remands the case to the cantonal authorities to rule on the merits of the eviction request. The cantonal court had wrongly considered the lease termination to be null and void on the grounds that the notice had not been served separately on the tenant's spouse, even though the lease concerned a family dwelling.
According to the Federal Tribunal, the absence in the Federal Act on the Lease of Agricultural Land (LBFA) of a provision comparable to Art. 266n CO, relating to the form of the notice given by the lessor when the lease concerns the family's dwelling, does not constitute a genuine gap, but rather a qualified silence of the…