{"id":30704,"date":"2026-07-02T19:01:21","date_gmt":"2026-07-02T19:01:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thelegalcompany.nl\/?p=30704"},"modified":"2026-09-07T09:14:55","modified_gmt":"2026-09-07T09:14:55","slug":"redevelopment-of-commercial-premises-what-does-this-mean-for-you-as-a-tenant-or-landlord-and-for-termination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thelegalcompany.nl\/en\/redevelopment-of-commercial-premises-what-does-this-mean-for-you-as-a-tenant-or-landlord-and-for-termination\/","title":{"rendered":"Redevelopment of commercial premises: what does this mean for you as a tenant or landlord, and for termination?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Redevelopment of commercial real estate occurs regularly in practice. Outdated buildings make way for new construction, often with a different purpose. That raises legal questions, particularly when there are still tenants present in the building.<\/p>\n

For tenants this can mean that they are confronted with a termination of their lease. For landlords, on the other hand, the question arises as to what extent they can end existing tenancy relationships in order to make redevelopment possible.<\/p>\n

Weighing of interests<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Where does the line lie in that field of tension? A recent judgment of the Rotterdam District Court (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:15133<\/a>) <\/span>offers useful pointers for this. The ruling shows well how the court weighs the interests of tenant and landlord against each other when redevelopment and tenant protection collide. So it is not a black-and-white decision but genuinely a weighing of interests in which all the circumstances are taken into account.<\/p>\n

What happened?<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The owner of an outdated business complex wanted to demolish the existing buildings and replace them with new construction: twelve apartments with commercial space on the ground floor. A tenant of a hospitality unit opposed the termination of his lease and went to court. The tenant was unsuccessful. In particular, the court’s reasoning is instructive for anyone dealing with the letting or renting of commercial premises.<\/p>\n

What is the legal position?<\/strong><\/h4>\n

For the letting of commercial premises within the meaning of article 7:290 et seq. of the Dutch Civil Code (such as a shop, restaurant or caf\u00e9), the tenant enjoys extensive statutory protection against termination. To that end, the law applies a system of two fixed lease terms, followed by an indefinite-term phase, with strict requirements always applying for termination by the landlord.<\/p>\n

A lease of commercial premises is in principle entered into for five years (art. 7:292 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code), unless the parties agree a longer term. If the agreement is not terminated in time, it continues by operation of law for a second period of five years (art. 7:292 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code). Termination by the landlord at the end of this first period is only possible if the landlord relies on one of the grounds exhaustively listed in article 7:296 of the Dutch Civil Code, which can also include demolition for the purpose of replacement new construction (art. 7:296 paragraph 1 sub b of the Dutch Civil Code). If the landlord lacks the tenant’s consent, the landlord needs a court ruling for this.<\/p>\n

After the first five years, the lease continues for a second period of, in principle, five years (art. 7:292 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code). Here too, the lease can only be terminated at the end of this second term, observing a notice period of at least one year (art. 7:293 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code). For the landlord, the exhaustive grounds of article 7:296 of the Dutch Civil Code again apply. In the event of termination at the end of this second term, an additional judicial weighing of interests also applies (art. 7:296 paragraph 3 of the Dutch Civil Code): the court weighs the landlord’s interest in termination against the tenant’s interest in continuation. If, on a reasonable assessment, the tenant cannot be expected to vacate, the court rejects the claim. Even if the landlord formally has a valid ground for termination.<\/p>\n

Urgent personal use<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The ground of urgent personal use (art. 7:296 paragraph 1 sub b of the Dutch Civil Code) requires the landlord to demonstrate that it actually and urgently<\/u> needs the leased property, and that the plans \u2014 for example demolition and replacement new construction \u2014 are serious and concrete<\/u>. This is a substantive test: vague or speculative plans are insufficient. That sounds strict, and it is. But the Rotterdam District Court shows that if those requirements are met and demonstrated, the bar is not unreachably high.<\/p>\n

Relocation and fit-out costs<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Note!<\/strong> If the court grants the termination, it can also decide that the tenant is entitled, under article 7:297 of the Dutch Civil Code, to a judicially awarded contribution<\/u> towards relocation and fit-out costs.<\/p>\n

How concrete and serious must the plans be? <\/strong><\/h4>\n

The landlord in this case had:<\/p>\n