Hotel Lease Termination Validity Dispute

The tenant of a hotel-restaurant for fourteen years received a notice of termination from the landlord, which was initially justified by the desire to contemplate the future of the property, but the grounds provided in the termination letter lacked necessary clarity regarding any specific business plans, such as renovation or sale, and did not mention interpersonal issues. The court found that the landlord's subsequent attempts to introduce new reasons, such as a destroyed trust relationship based on investment disputes and allegations of fraudulent revenue reporting, constituted an impermissible appending of grounds rather than a clarification of the initial, vague justification, as these new reasons were not present in the original notice and appeared to be motivated by litigation tactics when proof was lacking, leading the court to uphold the lower courts' ruling that the termination was abusive and therefore ineffective under Article 271 of the Code of Obligations.