Dismissal of the appeal against the denial of an abusive termination and the refusal of an extension of the rental agreement

Facts

The appellant [X.] operated a chemical cleaning business in the premises rented by the respondent [Y. AG] in the [A.] -Center shopping mall. The respondent terminated the rental agreement by letter of October 11, 2005, effective April 20, 2006. The appellant contested the termination as abusive and alternatively requested a first reasonable extension of the rental agreement.

The Conciliation Authority for Rental and Leasehold Relationships of the Werdenberg-Sargans Judicial District recognized the validity of the termination and extended the terminated rental agreement for the first time until April 30, 2007. Both parties did not accept this decision and appealed to the Werdenberg-Sargans District Court.

The District Court dismissed the complaint against the termination and upheld the complaint against the refusal of the extension. The appellant appealed to the St. Gallen Cantonal Court against the two judgments of March 8, 2006, maintaining his previously submitted requests.

The Cantonal Court consolidated the two proceedings and dismissed the appeals, but reduced the compensation to be paid by the appellant to the respondent for the latter's first-instance party costs to CHF 120.--.

Considerations

The FSCA examined the appellant's appeal and found that the lower court had made factual findings that were binding on the FSCA. The appeal brief contains numerous submissions that go beyond the factual findings in the contested judgment without any grounds for appeal being presented that would meet the aforementioned requirements for reasoning.

The lower court found that, contrary to the appellant's opinion, there was neither an abusive termination within the meaning of Art. 271 para. 1 CO nor one within the meaning of Art. 271a para. 2 CO. The appellant did not submit anything in his appeal…