Anticipated restitution of the rented property and solvency of the replacement tenant

Facts

On 11 October 1986, Mrs. [M.] granted [B.] the use of a villa located in Martigny, for five years, in exchange for a monthly rent of 1,200 francs and a provision for charges of 150 francs per month. On 12 July 1988, [B.] informed Mrs. M.'s counsel that he intended to terminate the lease prematurely as soon as he had found one or more candidates to take it over. On 18 July 1988, he informed her of his intention to terminate the contractual relationship on 15 August 1988 and submitted a triple candidacy to her. A contradictory inventory of the premises took place on 14 September 1988. The landlady declared, on 15 September 1988, that she did not accept the tenants proposed by B. The keys to the house were returned the next day to the landlady's counsel.

By a motion of 16 October 1989, Mrs. [M.] sued [B.] for payment of the sum of 11,689 francs, plus interest, as rent for the period from mid-September 1988 to the end of February 1989. The defendant concluded that the claim should be dismissed. The Civil Court I of the Cantonal Court of the canton of Valais condemned the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of 7,425 francs, as rent for the aforementioned period.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined the issue of the anticipated restitution of the rented property and the solvency of the replacement tenant. According to art. 257 al. 1 CO, the tenant who, through their own fault or due to a force majeure event occurring in their person, cannot use the rented property or can only make limited use of it, must nonetheless pay all their counter-performance, insofar as the property has been made available to them by the landlord for the agreed use.

The landlord must offset against the rent the value of the expenses they have saved and the profits they have derived from another use of the property (art. 257 al. 2 CO). The landlord is not free to decide at their discretion how to use the premises after the tenant's premature departure. They must reduce their damage and, to do so, seek a replacement tenant if necessary.

In this case, the cantonal court rejected the candidacy of T. because this person was not interested in the rented premises. The candidacy of L. could not be retained either, insofar as the person concerned, who had a gross monthly income of around 2,500 francs, intended to take over…