Termination of rental agreement due to urgent own use, it will happen to you

Often suddenly, franchisee and franchisor are confronted with a lease termination due to renovation and/or because the landlord wants to use the property himself.
Fortunately, the franchisee and/or franchisor who rents a retail space is well protected in tenancy law. The starting point is that the franchisee and franchisor must be able to recoup their investments. However, rent is also a time-limited right. The lease can therefore, in principle, be terminated by the lessor at the end of the agreed term. Termination is possible, among other things, if the landlord states that he needs the rented property urgently.

Can the tenant be evicted just like that? No, the landlord’s cancellation (unlike the tenant’s cancellation) does not end the rental agreement even after the notice period of at least one year. After termination, the lessor must also claim eviction from the subdistrict court judge by means of a summons. During this procedure, the rental agreement will continue. In this procedure, the lessor must make a plausible case that he urgently needs the rented property himself. Urgent need also includes renovation that cannot take place during the lease and the situation in which the lessor wishes to operate its own establishment in the leased property for a branch and/or franchisee.

For example, the Supreme Court ruled that a competing retail format that had purchased the property from another formula with the aim of establishing its own shop there was allowed to terminate the lease and the eviction was also granted. According to the Supreme Court, there was no abuse of rights in such a situation by giving notice.
Is it that simple then? No. First of all, the new owner must wait three years after purchase before he can cancel. In this provision, according to the Supreme Court, the abuse is thus subject to a time limit. In addition, the tenant can claim an allowance for moving and refurbishment costs. If after the termination it appears that the owner benefits from the fact that he operates a similar business as the tenant did, the former tenant can also claim a goodwill compensation. However, this claim can only be brought after the rental agreement has ended.

Furthermore, as a rule, the actual eviction may only take place after the appeal and, where applicable, the Supreme Court have also ruled on the eviction. These procedures take a long time.
The termination also automatically terminates the sublease agreement. This is not always recognized in time. However, the subtenant can claim compensation from the main tenant if the main tenant has made insufficient efforts to protect the interests of the subtenant. Usually, the main tenant and subtenant also jointly defend the eviction.

In franchise relationships, in view of the above, it is recommended that both the franchisee and the franchisor inform themselves properly about the possibilities and risks at the appropriate times, for example when entering into the franchise agreement and on the eve of major investments, as well as in the event of an intended sale. s of the term of the main lease. For this reason too, franchise and (sub)lease agreements are often linked in terms of duration.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?

On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee

The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017

On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Forecasts at startup franchise formula

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the

Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?

On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation

Transfer customer data to franchisor

In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.

Go to Top