Facts
[A.] (Tenant; Appellant) has been the tenant of a 4.5-room apartment on the 3rd floor at [X.] Street in [U.] since 1 July 1984. The apartment is part of a development of several multi-family houses with a total of 95 apartments, which were built in 1978 or 1979. On 24 November 2015, the landlord, Pension Fund [B.] (Landlord, Respondent), terminated the tenancy agreement effective 31 March 2016. The termination was justified by the fact that all apartments in the development had been undergoing extensive renovations for years and the renovations had to be carried out professionally in a vacant state.
The tenant challenged the termination as invalid/abusive. The Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft partially upheld the appeal, extended the tenancy agreement for the first time by two years until 31 March 2018, and otherwise confirmed the decision of the District Court.
Considerations
The FJA holds that an ordinary termination of a tenancy agreement does not require special grounds for termination. The contracting parties are generally free to terminate the (indefinite) tenancy agreement in compliance with the deadlines and dates. The only limit is the principle of good faith: In the case of the rental of residential and commercial premises, the termination is contestable if it violates this principle.
A termination with a view to renovation or refurbishment work does not violate the principle of good faith if the planned work significantly restricts the continued use of the rented property. However, if a termination is made with a view to a project that is not yet so advanced as to be able to assess whether the planned work requires the vacation of the rented property, it violates the principle of good faith.
In the present case, the Respondent has informed the tenants about the planned renovations in the development since 2011 and has renovated the majority of the apartments by the end of 2016. Therefore, the…