Facts
The appellant, [A. SA] , landlord and defendant, filed a civil law appeal against the judgment of the Housing and Rental Chamber of the Geneva Cantonal Court of Justice dated 24 January 2019 (C/15728/2017, ACJC/106/2019). The respondent, [B.X.] , tenant and plaintiff, was represented by guardians.
By contract of 21 October 1980, the deceased tenant leased a three-room apartment in Geneva for an indefinite term from 1 November 1980, terminable for 31 March and 30 September with three months' notice. After a change of owner in February 2010 and the death of the tenant in January 2014, the lease was taken over by his son, [B.X.] . The monthly rent including charges was CHF 920.
A curatorship was established in favour of the tenant on 14 May 2014. On 19 May 2017, neighbours reported odours, food moths, birds and excrement on the tenant's balcony. On 2 June 2017, the landlord informed the Adult Protection Service and asked the management agency to organise a visit.
On 6 June 2017, the landlord terminated the lease for 30 September 2017, without stating a reason. A visit took place on 13 June 2017. The tenant, who had been incarcerated for approximately three months following an incident on 24 February 2017 (a loaded firearm at the residence, intervention by ambulance personnel and then the police), was not present in his dwelling at the time of the termination.
On 6 July 2017, the tenant applied to the conciliation authority, then to the Housing and Rental Tribunal on 18 October 2017, seeking primarily the annulment of the notice. By judgment of 25 April 2018, the tribunal annulled the notice. The cantonal court upheld this judgment on the landlord's appeal on 24 January 2019.
The landlord lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on 1 March 2019, seeking primarily a declaration that the notice was valid and, in the alternative, remittal of the case to the cantonal court. It alleged violation of Arts. 271 CO and 8 CC. The respondent sought dismissal of the appeal.
The cantonal court found that the landlord had suffered no harm to its interests as a result of the event of 24 February 2017, that no employee or member of the management agency was concerned, and that the tenants heard had no problem with the plaintiff. It also found that, although the apartment was untidy, cluttered and malodorous at the time of termination, it was not unsanitary in light of the photographs and testimony gathered.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court recalls that, for a residential lease of indefinite duration, the landlord may in principle terminate without a particular reason (Art. 266a para. 1 CO). The notice remains voidable, however, where it contravenes the rules of good faith (Art. 271 para. 1 CO), which is the case where it serves no objective, serious and worthy interest, where it is purely vexatious, or where it reflects a gross disproportion between the interests at stake (Art. 2 CC). It is for the tenant to prove the circumstances founding the breach of good faith, while the landlord must, upon request, state its reasons and produce the necessary documents (Art. 271 para. 2 CO). An incomplete or false statement of reasons may constitute an indication of the absence of a worthy interest. The real motive, or its pretextual character, falls within findings of fact, whereas the question of good faith is a question of law reviewed freely. The facts must be assessed at the time the notice is served.
As regards the first ground, the event of 24 February 2017, the appellant argues that the tenant's threatening conduct justified its interest in avoiding dangerous situations for other tenants and visitors. The Federal Supreme Court notes, however, that this threatening conduct does not appear from the established facts, that the appellant does not claim they were arbitrary, and that the tenant explained that he had wanted to commit suicide, without resistance or subsequent threat. Possession of a loaded firearm…