Facts
- [D.] leased premises to spouses [A.] for the operation of an antiques business. - On March 17, 1982, [D.] notified the tenants of an increase in the annual rent to 9,360 francs. The parties entered into negotiations, but [D.] ultimately withdrew the rent increase notice by letter dated March 24, 1982. - In July 1983, the [A.] store was burglarized, causing damage of 3.5 to 4 million francs. The tenants reproached [D.] for having provided them with unsuitable premises. - On February 7, 1984, [D.] terminated the lease effective July 31, 1984. - Spouses [A.] opposed the termination and primarily sought a declaration of its nullity, subsidiarily the granting of a first lease extension of two years.Considerations
1. According to Art. 28(3) AMSL, a termination by the landlord is null and void if it occurs within two years after an agreement has been reached before the conciliation commission, the landlord has refrained from bringing the matter before the judicial authority or has been unsuccessful in court proceedings. However, the cantonal court considered that the withdrawal of the rent increase notice, which occurred outside any procedure, did not entail the effects provided for by this provision. The Federal Tribunal shares this interpretation, considering that Art. 28(3) AMSL relates solely to the consequences of the procedure before the conciliation commission and the judge.
2. According to Art. 31(1)(2) AMSL, anyone who has terminated the lease because the tenant is safeguarding or intends to safeguard the rights conferred on him by the ordinance is criminally punishable, and this criminal unlawfulness entails the civil nullity of the retaliatory notice. However, the cantonal court considered that this case of nullity was not…