Facts
The defendants, [A.M.] and [H.M.] , rented from the plaintiff, [C. SA] , a 3 1/2-room attic apartment and two parking spaces on June 1, 1996. After a break-in into the apartment on the first day after moving in, the defendants terminated the rental agreement prematurely on August 31, 1996. The plaintiff did not accept this termination and demanded rent for the apartment and garage spaces until the regular termination date.
The Rent Court and the High Court of the Canton of Zurich ruled in favor of the plaintiff and obliged the defendants to pay the claimed amount. The defendants appealed to the Federal Court and requested that the contested decision be reversed and the appeal be approved.
Considerations
The Federal Court dealt with the question of whether the termination declared by the defendants is valid. It found that defendant 1, under the impression of the break-in, fell into a serious psychological crisis and suffered from panic-like anxiety in her apartment. This constitutes an important reason for an extraordinary termination according to Art. 266g para. 1 CO.
However, the Federal Court also found that the argumentation of the High Court, that it is up to defendant 1 to undergo (specialist) medical treatment, is not convincing. The decision on whether and how one wants to undergo medical treatment lies in the individual's right to self-determination and cannot be influenced by the landlord's interest in adhering to the rental agreement.
The Federal Court therefore decided that the extraordinary termination declared by the defendants is valid and the rental agreement ended on October 30,…