When a landlord’s family needs the flat: a 2026 Federal Supreme Court ruling

A landlord may end a residential lease so that a relative can live in the flat. The need must be real on the day notice is given. That is the point decided by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court on 30 July 2026 in judgment 4A_318/2026.

The case

The lease concerned a 5.5-room flat in the canton of Obwalden. The landlords, who had bought the property in 2021, gave notice on 23 December 2022 using the official form.

A relative was to move in after the notice period to help the landlords' daughter, who has a chronic illness, look after her twins. The daughter already lived in the building. The relative later abandoned the plan because her own health deteriorated sharply.

The tenants asked the court to set the notice aside. In the alternative, they asked for a first extension of two years.

A real family need is not a pretext

Articles 271 and 271a of the Code of Obligations allow a tenant to challenge notice that breaches good faith. A landlord may still terminate so that they, or a close relative by blood or marriage, can occupy the dwelling.

The notice is abusive only if the stated need is not genuine and is used as a pretext. Here, the relative was to help her chronically ill daughter-in-law care for the twins. The Federal Supreme Court held that this could not be described as an abusive termination (consideration 2.4).

Only the date of notice matters

The relative's later change of plan does not undo the notice. Good faith is judged at the time of termination, not by what happens months later (consideration 2.5, referring to BGE 145 III 143).

A later change of circumstances does not, by itself, turn a need that was real at the time into a pretext.

Six months, not two years

Article 272 of the Code of Obligations allows an extension where ending the lease would cause hardship to the tenant or their family that the landlord's interest does not justify. Its main purpose is to give more time to look for another home.

The court looks at the search actually carried out after notice. If there is none, or if it is inadequate, that counts against the tenant from the first extension (consideration 3.3).

In this case the tenants had only searched online. They had not viewed a single flat. They limited the search to rents below CHF 2,250 and did not use their financial means to the extent required. Because of the proceedings, they had also already remained in the flat for more than three and a half years. The six-month extension set by the cantonal court, until 30 November 2025, was not open to criticism (consideration 3.4).

Medical documents about a child, filed for the first time before the Federal Supreme Court, were left aside as new facts that are inadmissible at that stage.

What the judgment does not decide

It does not say that every "family" notice is valid. An invented need, or a need put forward to hide another reason, can still be challenged. It also does not set an extension length for every canton: six months was enough here because the search was weak and a long period had already been gained.

Challenging notice and asking for an extension are subject to time limits. Missing them usually closes the court route.

Sources

Swiss Federal Supreme Court, judgment 4A_318/2026 of 30 July 2026, First Civil Law Division, appeal against the Obergericht of the canton of Obwalden of 5 May 2026. Articles 271, 271a and 272 of the Code of Obligations.