Facts
The dispute opposes T., tenant, to the H. spouses, landlords, regarding the termination of a rental agreement for a restaurant located in the old town of Zurich. The initial contract was concluded on 27 July 1971 and was extended on 15 May 1976 for a period of ten years, with a non-termination clause until 31 March 1987. The termination was notified by the landlords on 25 September 1987, with effect as of 30 September 1988. The tenant contested the validity of this termination, invoking in particular the prohibition of termination during the protection period provided for by Article 28 paragraph 3 of the Rent Law (AMSL) and the absence of valid reasons for termination.
The court of first instance dismissed the tenant's claim, and the cantonal court confirmed this judgment on appeal. The tenant filed an appeal with the Federal Court, which was dismissed.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the grounds invoked by the tenant, in particular the violation of Article 31 number 1 paragraph 2 of the Rent Law (BMM), which provides that termination is null and void if it is motivated by an intention to take revenge on the tenant for exercising their rights under the rent legislation. The Federal Court considered that the question of whether a presumption of fact or a presumption of the man allows a determined intention of the landlord to be retained is a question of assessment of the evidence that cannot be reviewed.
The Federal Court also examined the issue of the gap in the rental agreement, which did not provide a rule for the case where the agreed termination would be impossible due to the prohibition of termination provided for by Article 28 paragraph 3 AMSL. The Federal…