Facts
On May 6, 1983, the operating company of Clinic [Y.] in Heiden and Dr. med. X. concluded a cooperation agreement that regulated their legal relationship regarding Dr. X.'s activities as an attending physician at the clinic. On April 1, 1984, Clinic [Y. AG] and Dr. X. additionally concluded a lease agreement for a medical practice within the clinic building, which they expanded on June 16, 1987. By letter dated January 3, 1989, Clinic [Y. AG] terminated the cooperation agreement and demanded that the tenant vacate all premises by July 7, 1989.
Dr. X. requested an extension of the tenancy for the practice premises until the end of 1990. The President of the Cantonal Court of Appenzell A.Rh. denied the plaintiff's claim in principle under Art. 267a CO, but nevertheless extended the tenancy until October 31, 1989. On the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's cross-appeal, the President of the Cantonal Court of Appenzell A.Rh. dismissed the request in its entirety on June 22, 1989.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirms that the parties' lease agreement has no independent significance, but is merely part of the cooperation agreement. This contractual complex with only a subordinate lease element cannot be extended under Art. 267a CO.
While under Art. 267a CO, actual tenancies for residential or commercial premises are generally extendable. However, in the case of mixed or composite contracts, in which the lease agreement is only a subordinate element, an extension is excluded.…