Background

A landlord filed a case against a tenant and other defendants requesting that the court dismiss a tenancy agreement and order the tenant to vacate a rented shop. The landlord stated that the father of the defendant rented the shop but after his death the first defendant occupied the shop without legal justification. Furthermore, that the first defendant had filed a case to order the landlord to release the new tenancy agreement but his case was rejected.

The court ruled that the tenancy agreement be dismissed and the defendants vacate the shop.

The defendants appealed and the appeal court upheld the ruling.

The first defendant appealed by cassation.

Decision

Before the cassation court, the first defendant argued that the ruling had insufficient evidence of causation and had violated his right in defence as the court had established its ruling based on the first defendant not being an heir, despite him providing the court with documents which confirmed that he was continuing the same activity as the original tenant.