Facts

The defendants, seven co-owners in joint ownership (including several Sàrl and one SA) under the regime of the simple partnership, own eleven apartments in a residential building in the Aubépine district of Geneva. [Z.] is the director and sole shareholder of [G. SA] .

The plaintiff, [X.] , has lived in the building since 1986 and has occupied a three-room apartment on the second floor since 1 September 2008, at a monthly rent of CHF 950 plus ancillary charges. He was the building's concierge from 1986 to 2015, after which maintenance work was entrusted to an external company.

On 30 October 2015, the owners terminated the lease effective 31 January 2016, on the grounds of [Z.] 's personal need.

Cantonal proceedings

  • On 12 February 2016, the plaintiff brought an action before the Tribunal des baux et loyers of Geneva, principally seeking annulment of the termination and, in the alternative, an extension of four years.
  • The defendants requested dismissal and filed a counterclaim for eviction and for monthly compensation of CHF 950.
  • On 20 February 2017, the tribunal annulled the termination and dismissed the counterclaim.
  • On 20 November 2017, the Chamber for Leases and Rents of the Court of Justice partially upheld the appeal, found the termination valid and remitted the case to rule on the extension.
  • The appeal against this interlocutory decision was declared inadmissible (judgment 4A_22/2018 of 28 March 2018).
  • On 6 August 2018, the Tribunal des baux et loyers granted a single extension of three years, until 31 January 2019, and again dismissed the counterclaim.
  • On 11 February 2019, the Chamber for Leases and Rents dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the judgment.

Proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court

The plaintiff files a civil law appeal against both judgments of the Court of Justice. He seeks annulment of the termination and, in the alternative, an extension of four years. A suspensive effect was granted on 12 April 2019. The defendants left the matter to the court's discretion and were not invited to respond.

Main legal question

The dispute concerns the validity of the termination in light of good faith (Art. 271 CO), in particular whether the personal need of the sole shareholder of the lessor company may justify the termination, and the duration of the extension (Art. 272 CO).

Considerations

The appeal is admissible: the judgment of 11 February 2019 is a final decision (Art. 90 FSCA) and the interlocutory judgment of 20 November 2017 may be challenged together with it (Art. 93 para. 3 FSCA). On the merits, the termination is voidable only if it contravenes the rules of good faith (Art. 271 para. 1 CO), in particular where it is capricious, lacks a legitimate interest, or where there is a gross disproportion of interests; a manifestly abusive attitude is not required (Art. 2 CC). Validity is assessed at the time of termination.

The lessor, whether a natural or legal person, may in principle invoke any ground, including the intention to assign the dwelling to a third party, for example a shareholder or a person connected to the lessor. Art. 271a para. 3 let. a CO, which limits urgent need of the lessor to the lessor and close relatives, does not apply here, because the termination is not based on Art. 271a para. 1 let. d or e CO. A public limited company has no family, so this exceptional regime would in any event hardly be available to it. The shareholder's need is therefore not, in itself, a ground contrary to good faith under Art. 271 CO.

The real motive for the termination falls within the findings of fact, which bind the Federal Supreme Court save for arbitrariness (Art. 97 para. 1 and Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA). The plaintiff merely disputes the testimony and offers his own assessment, which does not demonstrate that the cantonal assessment…