Facts
Parties and procedural history: The tenant ([A. AG] ) rented a 5.5-room single-family house with garage and parking space under a contract dated 21 April 2023 from the original owner. The monthly gross rent was CHF 3,011.--. On 1 June 2023, the owner sold the rental property to the landlord ([B.] ). The latter terminated the tenancy on 11 February 2024 with effect from 31 May 2024. The tenant challenged the termination on 20 February 2024 before the conciliation authority for tenancy and lease law of the Canton of SocRA and applied for an extension of the tenancy. As no agreement was reached, the tenant was granted leave to sue, which she failed to use.
The landlord filed an application for eviction with the Cantonal Court of SocRA, Single Judge, on 1 June 2024. The court treated the application as summary proceedings and ordered the tenant on 10 July 2024 to vacate the property by no later than 29 July 2024. In the event of non-compliance, the court threatened to instruct the enforcement authorities and to file criminal charges against the tenant’s representatives for disobedience to official orders. The tenant was ordered to pay a court fee of CHF 1,000.--.
Subject matter of dispute: The tenant contested the validity of the termination, arguing that the property was partially used for business purposes and that therefore the six-month notice period for commercial premises applied. The Single Judge found that the lease provided for use as a “family home/registered partnership” and as “office/business premises”, without further qualifying the tenancy that had existed since 2021. The tenant’s objections were insufficiently substantiated, as she had not shown for what business purposes and to what extent the property had been used.
The tenant appealed against the Single Judge’s decision. The Superior Court of the Canton of SocRA upheld the contested decision by judgment of 14 August 2024 and set the eviction date for 26 August 2024 at 12.00 noon. The tenant was ordered to pay a court fee of CHF 1,000.-- and party compensation of CHF 1,340.-- (including VAT).
On 16 September 2024, the tenant filed an appeal in civil matters with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the Superior Court’s decision and a refusal to entertain the eviction claim. She had already vacated the property on 2 September 2024 and handed it over to the landlord. She argued that her standing persisted despite the vacating, as she had been unjustly burdened with procedural costs and faced the risk of criminal conviction for disobedience to official orders (Art. 292 SCC).
Considerations
1. Admissibility of the appeal The Federal Supreme Court examines of its own motion whether the appeal is admissible. It takes as its basis the facts established by the lower court and may only correct CO supplement them if they are obviously incorrect CO based on a violation of law. The tenant has not sufficiently demonstrated her standing, as she has already voluntarily vacated the property and no longer has a current CO practical interest in the annulment of the decision. The mere burden of procedural costs CO the risk of criminal conviction does not constitute sufficient standing, particularly where the tenant has not shown any concrete disadvantages CO an actual threat of prosecution. Moreover, she could have applied for suspensive effect before the eviction date.
2. Merits of the appeal Even if the admissibility requirements were deemed to be met, the appeal would be unfounded. The tenant has not sufficiently substantiated her claim that the property was actually used for business purposes. The lease provided for use as a “family home/registered partnership” and as “office/business premises”, and the parties had ticked the three-month notice period for residential premises. The landlord thus plausibly showed that, for the purposes relevant to the termination, he classified the property as residential. The tenant should have presented substantiated objections, especially since the alleged business uses were within her own sphere and she could easily have provided detailed information.
3. Duty to substantiate and free assessment of evidence The lower court was right to require the tenant to substantiate her objections sufficiently. The requirements for a substantiated denial are lower than for an…