18 August 2026
To successfully rely on the termination ground of urgent own use (Article 7:296(1)(b) of the Dutch Civil Code), the landlord of 7:290 BW business premises (including hospitality and retail premises) must make it sufficiently plausible that they intend to take the leased property into urgent, personal, and durable use.
In this context, unlike for residential leases, there is no room for a balancing of interests. If urgent own use is established, the court must grant the termination claim.
The word “urgent” in Article 7:296(1)(b) BW does not express a degree of haste or extreme seriousness. What is decisive is whether the landlord’s own use of the leased property is of essential importance to them. No further requirements than making that plausible are imposed.
Own use is not limited to use by the landlord themselves; it also includes use by another person closely related to the landlord. The law mentions the spouse or registered partner, a first-degree relative by blood or marriage, or a foster child. Use by a company of which the landlord is the director and sole shareholder can also qualify as own use, as long as it is clear that the landlord’s own interest is being served.
Note: If notice is given for the end of the first term of the contract, a waiting period of three years applies to successors in title. That waiting period starts when the succession is notified to the tenant in writing. However, an oral notification can sometimes also be valid for this purpose. Thus, during the first term, a new owner cannot immediately terminate the lease on the ground of urgent own use right after the transfer.
It is not required that the intended user needs the leased premises in their entirety, and the intended use does not necessarily have to be use as 7:290 BW business premises. Other use permitted under the zoning plan also qualifies. A landlord who, for example, wishes to use 7:290 BW business premises as office or storage space within the meaning of Article 7:230a BW (office space and other) may also rely on this termination ground if the zoning plan permits the intended use. Furthermore, a landlord who wishes to demolish or renovate the leased property to realize new 7:230a or 7:290 BW business premises, or even residential accommodation, may terminate the lease on the ground of urgent own use. However, renovation of the business premises only constitutes durable use if renovation without terminating the lease is not possible.
If notice of termination is given for the end of the first five-year lease term, there is no scope for a balancing of interests. If notice is given for the end of the second five-year term, or after ten years or later, a balancing of interests can serve as an additional ground. In such a case, it is advisable to address—not only urgent own use—but also the balancing of interests in the termination notice. If the court unexpectedly rejects the reliance on urgent own use, termination can still be ordered on the basis of the balancing of interests.
The notice must state the grounds that led to termination. It must be served by bailiff’s writ (deurwaardersexploot) or sent by registered letter, observing a notice period of at least one year.
The landlord’s notice of termination does not, however, end the agreement unless the tenant consents. The tenant has six weeks to indicate whether they consent to the termination. If the tenant does not consent or remains silent, the landlord may seek a court order determining the date on which the lease ends. The notice thus only constitutes the precondition for bringing the termination claim.
The law does not prescribe a time limit within which, after the landlord’s notice, the termination claim must be filed. Nor can it be inferred from the system of the law that the notice of termination loses its effect if the claim is filed after the date as of which notice was given. According to the Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI0070), the landlord’s notice only loses its validity if the landlord clearly stated that they waive this claim. Mere inaction by the landlord does not, by definition, imply waiver of the claim. It follows from this judgment that a tenant of business premises cannot assume that, after the contractual end date, the landlord can no longer bring a termination action. This claim therefore continues to hang over the tenant’s head.
Do you have any questions regarding this article? Please feel free to contact us. We’d be happy to advise you.
