’s-Hertogenbosch, April 23, 2026 – Schelstraete Equine Law successfully represented a landlord in expedited injunction proceedings before the District Court of Oost-Brabant concerning the termination of a residential lease agreement and the eviction of a tenant who refused to vacate the property despite earlier agreements to do so.
The dispute arose after the landlord and tenant entered into discussions in 2025 regarding the future of the property in connection with a planned sale. According to the landlord, the tenant expressly agreed that the lease would end on 1 April 2026 and repeatedly confirmed that vacating the property would “not be a problem.” The tenant also indicated in written WhatsApp correspondence that he expected to leave the property even earlier than the agreed date.
Tenant Refused to Vacate After Lease Termination Agreement
Relying on those assurances, the landlord proceeded with the sale of the property. However, shortly before the agreed termination date, the tenant changed his position and refused to vacate the premises. The tenant subsequently invoked Dutch statutory tenant protection and argued that no legally binding termination agreement had been concluded.
Schelstraete Equine Law initiated preliminary relief proceedings on behalf of the landlord and argued that the tenant’s own statements and conduct demonstrated that a binding mutual termination agreement had been reached. The proceedings focused on whether the landlord had reasonably relied on the tenant’s repeated confirmations and whether the tenant could subsequently withdraw from those arrangements after the landlord had already acted in reliance on them.
Court Rules in Favor of the Landlord
In its judgment, the District Court of Oost-Brabant held that it was sufficiently plausible that the parties had indeed agreed to terminate the lease by mutual consent. The Court attached particular importance to the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties, including messages in which the tenant expressly confirmed that vacating the property was “no problem” and indicated that he would cooperate with the written confirmation of the arrangements.
The Court further considered it relevant that the landlord had already sold the property in reliance on the agreed termination date. Under those circumstances, the Court found that the tenant could not successfully invoke statutory tenant protection after having repeatedly confirmed the agreed termination of the lease.
The Court therefore ordered the tenant to vacate the property within fourteen days after service of the judgment and ordered the tenant to pay the legal costs of the proceedings.
Legal Assistance in Tenancy, Contract, and Eviction Disputes
Schelstraete Equine Law provides strategic legal advice and representation in complex tenancy, contractual, lease termination, and eviction disputes. Whether you are dealing with lease agreements, contractual obligations between parties, or urgent possession proceedings, our team of legal experts is ready to assist you with tailored, result-driven solutions that protect your legal and financial interests. Contact us today to see how we can help you.
