Buying out a tenant to sell with vacant possession
A landlord can buy out a tenant only with the tenant's consent, because a sale is, as a rule, no ground for giving notice. That consent holds up if the tenant knows what is given up and had time to think. In The Hague, an agreement signed with no chance to prepare failed. Below: the court's test, who signs and the approach.
The Hague Court of Appeal: form signed at inspection fails
On 15 September 2020 The Hague Court of Appeal upheld a judgment of the Rotterdam subdistrict court: the termination agreement had been annulled and the tenant could stay in her home. She had rented it since April 2016 for an indefinite term, at €775 a month. The landlord wanted to sell: according to his own email, he could not buy another home while this one was let (The Hague Court of Appeal 2020, paras 1.1, 1.13, 2.6 and 5.1).
On 1 November 2018 he told her via WhatsApp that, as a landlord, he was "legally obliged" to inspect the home periodically for criminal offences. At the visit three days later he produced a form he had already prepared, with the pre-printed sentence that the tenancy agreement "will be terminated". Added by hand were an end date, 1 March 2019, an undertaking that he would help her look for other accommodation, and the option to leave earlier. The form mentioned no payment. She signed. Eight days later she wrote that she had been overwhelmed, did not want to lose her home and was annulling the agreement (The Hague Court of Appeal 2020, paras 1.3-1.5 and 1.12).
Why a sale is no ground for giving notice
The court explains why the landlord turned up with a form. What he "in fact" had to do was give notice, and as landlord he could not do so unilaterally (The Hague Court of Appeal 2020, paras 4.3-4.4). Under residential tenancy law, a landlord may give notice only on one of the grounds in Section 7:274(1) DCC. Notice given on any other ground is void (Section 7:271(5) DCC). The ground closest to a sale, an urgent need for personal use (dringend eigen gebruik), expressly excludes the "transfer of the rented accommodation".
Since 1 July 2024 the law has one ground for a sale, and it is narrow. It applies only to a private individual who lets no more than one home and who lived in that home as owner for at least two years immediately before the tenancy began. The tenancy agreement must expressly allow notice to be given for the purpose of a sale after the agreed period, and no more than two years may have passed since the tenancy began (Section 7:274(1)(h) and (7) DCC). Anyone who lets more than one home falls outside it.
Outside that one ground, a sale clause in the tenancy agreement does not help. A clause under which the tenancy ends on a sale without notice of termination is void (Section 7:271(8) DCC). A statement that the home is let temporarily because it has to be sold does not take away the tenant's protection either (Alkmaar provisional relief judge 2016, para. 5.5). Reasonableness offers little way out: only in very exceptional circumstances is reliance on security of tenure unacceptable (Alkmaar provisional relief judge 2016, para. 5.8). In March 2024 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal dealt with an indebted landlord whose assets were under court-ordered protective administration (bewind) and who wanted to sell with vacant possession. The tenant's reliance on her security of tenure was not unacceptable, partly because a sale with the tenant in place would largely cover his debts. That she had turned down a relocation allowance did not diminish her interest (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 2024, paras 3.8 and 3.10).
What remains is the exception the law itself makes: the protective rules do not apply "if the tenancy is ended by mutual consent after it has commenced" (Section 7:271(10) DCC, paragraph 8 until 1 July 2024). The landlord cannot force this. A tenant "cannot be compelled to enter into an agreement whose purpose is that he leaves the home and waives security of tenure" (The Hague Court of Appeal 2022, para. 6.17). A landlord who wants to sell with vacant possession therefore needs a signature that holds up.
Giving up security of tenure must be a considered choice
In the case of the form, the court took as its starting point that termination by mutual consent ends security of tenure. It must then be "clear", however, that the tenant agrees that the tenancy, "including (further) entitlement to security of tenure", comes to an end. The form fell short of that. The court gave considerable weight to the fact that the landlord had announced the visit as an inspection, while he had already drawn up the form. The tenant had no opportunity to think about the termination beforehand. Her immediate willingness stemmed from sympathy for his situation, without advice from anyone else, and was in the court's words "rash (not well considered)". Nothing suggested that staying had been discussed as a real option. The form left only a choice between signing and not signing (The Hague Court of Appeal 2020, paras 4.2 and 4.5-4.6).
The court held this to be abuse of circumstances (misbruik van omstandigheden, Section 3:44(4) DCC). The landlord should have dissuaded her from ending the tenancy "without (a period for) reflection", or expressly pointed out that she was giving up her security of tenure. Even if, as the landlord argued, she was assertive and experienced in door-to-door selling, that made no difference. According to the court, the situation also met the requirements for mistake (Section 6:228 DCC; The Hague Court of Appeal 2020, paras 4.7 and 4.9).
Time between letter and signature does not save a termination either if the tenant is vulnerable and the landlord knows it. In December 2022 the Rotterdam subdistrict court annulled a termination that a tenant had signed three weeks after receiving the letter. The landlord had announced a meeting about a structural report and then raised termination in it as well. His letter mentioned a relocation allowance of €6,250, "set by the Dutch government". The tenant, 85 at the time of the judgment, was caring for her sister, who had just had a fall and an operation, and he knew this. He should have made sure that she realised she was giving up her security of tenure, and should have advised her to discuss the letter with a legal adviser or her children. He had reminded her to sign, but did not ask, then or later, whether she knew what she had signed (Rotterdam subdistrict court 2022, paras 2.8 and 4.3-4.5).
The Rotterdam subdistrict court showed in July 2026 that it can also work out. After a notice of termination, and after consulting family and housemates, a student asked whether he could stay until 1 September 2024. He then cooperated with the pre-handover inspection. The landlord was entitled to assume that he had consented. The court took into account that he had had time to consult and that no pressure had been applied. It also took into account that his tenancy agreement stated that he had security of tenure, and that the landlord was inexperienced and had not engaged legal help. That inexperience was also taken into account in rejecting mistake and abuse of circumstances (Rotterdam subdistrict court 2026, paras 2.8-2.10, 2.13 and 2.15). A landlord who knows tenancy law or takes advice cannot use that argument.
Termination agreement: how, when and by whom
A party relying on a termination must be able to prove it (Alkmaar subdistrict court 2022, para. 4.2). Willingness to leave is not the same as consent. A tenant who proposed leaving in return for €8,000 and refused to sign the letter of agreement had not consented unconditionally (Alkmaar provisional relief judge 2016, paras 2.5-2.6 and 5.3). What counts is unconditional consent to a fixed end date. The law prescribes no particular form; a signed document makes proof straightforward.
The agreement must be made after the tenancy has commenced. Security of tenure can be waived only once the tenant has it. Any other reading could mean that a tenant "does not waive his rights in complete freedom" (Utrecht provisional relief judge 2024, para. 3.12). A term about leaving in the tenancy agreement itself therefore does not count as termination by mutual consent.
Every tenant must sign. A spouse or registered partner whose principal residence is the home is a co-tenant by operation of law, even if not named in the agreement. If the tenancy ends only as regards the tenant, the co-tenant becomes the tenant (Section 7:266(1) and (3) DCC). An agreement signed only by the tenant therefore does not deliver vacant possession while the partner lives there. If all tenants sign, each of them is jointly and severally liable to hand the home back vacant, including anyone who has already left (Utrecht subdistrict court 2024, paras 2.4-2.6). If a subtenant has their principal residence in a self-contained dwelling, the sublease does not end with the tenancy. The landlord continues the sublease and can ask the court to end it only within six months, and on limited grounds (Section 7:269 DCC).
If the tenant does not leave on the end date
Even with a signed agreement, the landlord needs a judgment to evict, and the eviction itself is carried out by the bailiff (Utrecht subdistrict court 2024, para. 2.3). In preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding), eviction from residential accommodation is ordered only if it is highly likely that the court on the merits would do the same (Utrecht provisional relief judge 2024, para. 3.3). Conditional consent was not enough for eviction (Alkmaar provisional relief judge 2016, paras 5.1 and 5.3).
Once the agreement is established, the court holds the parties to it. Consent that the landlord has received cannot be withdrawn by the tenant unilaterally (Rotterdam subdistrict court 2019, para. 5.2). From the end date a charge for use and occupation is payable until the home is vacated, in that case equal to the rent (Utrecht subdistrict court 2024, paras 2.8-2.9). Conversely, an agreed buy-out payment is owed: a landlord who claimed that a lower amount had later been agreed did not succeed (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 2016, paras 3.2-3.5).
What does this mean for a landlord selling a home?
Start, for each home, with who lives there: the tenant, a partner whose principal residence is the home, co-tenants and subtenants. Look at the rent as well, because a buy-out offer may prompt the tenant to take advice. The adviser may find that earlier rent increases were not notified as the law requires. The rent then goes down and the landlord repays part of the rent overpaid (Haarlem subdistrict court 2016, paras 2.9 and 8.2-8.7, operative part 10.8-10.9).
The scope for a buy-out payment lies in the difference between the value with vacant possession and the value with the tenant in place. In the case of the landlord under administration, the home was valued at €431,000 let and €735,000 vacant (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 2024, para. 2.9). If no agreement is reached, the landlord can sell with the tenant in place. The tenancy passes to the buyer (Section 7:226 DCC). For the first three years after notice of the transfer, that buyer cannot rely on an urgent need for personal use (Section 7:274(5)(b) DCC).
A landlord who sells with vacant possession after the tenant has left should bear in mind the anti-buy-to-let rule (opkoopbescherming). Where the municipality has introduced it, the rule covers lower- and mid-priced homes in a designated area. A buyer who acquires such a home with vacant possession may let it during the first four years only with a permit (Section 41 of the Dutch Housing Act 2014, Huisvestingswet 2014). If the home stands empty pending the sale, the municipality may allow temporary letting without security of tenure, for no more than five years in total (Section 15(1)(d) and (6) of the Vacancy Act, Leegstandwet).
Tell the tenant in advance that the meeting is about leaving, and put the proposal in writing with ample time to consider it. Advise the tenant to discuss it with an adviser; paying for that advice makes it easy to obtain. State in the agreement itself that the tenant has security of tenure, is free to refuse and can also stay. Do not send reminders to sign. Record a fixed end date, the condition in which the home is to be handed back and a charge for late departure, equal to the rent or capped. A penalty clause of €100 a day with no cap was annulled (Enschede subdistrict court 2026, para. 4.17). Pay the buy-out sum, or most of it, on handover of the keys, and only then agree a completion date with a buyer.
Protecting the tenant's choice also protects the landlord. The better the tenant knows what is being given up, the smaller the risk that the agreement is later set aside. A party advised by a lawyer during the negotiations will find it hard to rely afterwards on a mistake of law (Rotterdam subdistrict court 2023, para. 4.7). In the decisions discussed, the agreement held where the tenant had been able to consult others, and failed where the tenant had been taken by surprise.
Frequently asked questions
How much does a tenant receive for leaving before a sale?
The law sets no amount for voluntary departure; a benchmark is the statutory minimum allowance on renovation, €7,926 since 28 February 2026 (Section 7:275 DCC). Agree a full and final discharge, or the bill can grow: tenants accepted €5,000 while reserving their rights in their Rent Tribunal (huurcommissie) case, and the landlord also had to repay overpaid rent and the deposit (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 2016, paras 2.1.10, 3.2 and 3.11).
Must a tenant cooperate with viewings when the home is for sale?
Yes. A tenant must tolerate a "For Sale" board and give prospective buyers the opportunity to view the home (Section 7:223 DCC). That cooperation says nothing about consent to leave. A tenant cooperated with many viewings, yet it was not established that she had consented to leaving (Alkmaar provisional relief judge 2016, paras 2.3 and 5.3).
How long can a tenant challenge a termination agreement?
The right of action to annul (rechtsvordering tot vernietiging) becomes time-barred, for abuse of circumstances, three years after its influence ceased and, for mistake, three years after discovery (Section 3:52 DCC). If the landlord claims eviction on the basis of the agreement, the tenant can always rely on the ground for annulment as a defence (Section 3:51(3) DCC; cf. Rotterdam subdistrict court 2022, para. 4.5).
Cited case law
Courts of Appeal: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1633 (The Hague, 15 September 2020, paras 1.1-1.13, 4.2-4.9 and 5.1; termination agreement annulled for abuse of circumstances: presented unannounced, without time for reflection and without pointing out the surrender of security of tenure; also mistake); ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2024:689 (Amsterdam, 19 March 2024, paras 2.9 and 3.8-3.12; reliance on security of tenure not unacceptable where the landlord wants to sell with vacant possession, a sale with the tenant in place largely covers the landlord's debts); ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:1637 (The Hague, 13 September 2022, para. 6.17; a tenant cannot be compelled to enter into an agreement to leave the home and waive security of tenure); ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:4117 (Amsterdam, 11 October 2016, paras 2.1.10, 3.2-3.5 and 3.11; judgment upheld: a buy-out payment of €5,000 under a termination arrangement accepted by email with a reservation of rights is owed, a later reduction insufficiently substantiated).
District Courts: ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:11324 (Rotterdam, 24 July 2026, paras 2.8-2.15; the landlord could rely on apparent consent to a notice of termination, inexperienced landlord, no mistake or abuse of circumstances); ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:3638 (Overijssel, Enschede, 16 June 2026, paras 4.17-4.18; penalty clause of €100 a day with no cap annulled, charge for use and occupation limited to the rent); ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:2829 (Central Netherlands, Utrecht, 13 March 2024, paras 2.3-2.9; co-tenants jointly and severally liable to vacate after a termination agreement, eviction by the bailiff, charge for use and occupation); ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:1524 (Central Netherlands, Utrecht, preliminary relief proceedings, 13 March 2024, paras 3.3 and 3.12; security of tenure can be waived only after the tenancy concerned has commenced, standard for eviction in preliminary relief proceedings); ECLI:NL:RBROT:2023:650 (Rotterdam, 13 January 2023, paras 4.6-4.8; settlement agreement on leaving concluded with the assistance of a lawyer, reliance on mistake and abuse of circumstances fails); ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:11458 (Rotterdam, 30 December 2022, paras 2.8 and 4.2-4.5; termination annulled for abuse of circumstances, the landlord should have made sure the tenant understood and recommended that she seek advice); ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2022:5677 (North Holland, Alkmaar, 22 June 2022, paras 4.2-4.12; the burden of proving a termination arrangement lies with the landlord who relies on it); ECLI:NL:RBROT:2019:7133 (Rotterdam, 6 September 2019, paras 5.2-5.3; consent to a notice of termination, once received, cannot be withdrawn unilaterally); ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11254 (North Holland, Alkmaar, preliminary relief proceedings, 26 September 2016, paras 2.3-2.6 and 5.1-5.8; consent must be unconditional, a sale purpose stated in the agreement does not make the tenancy one of short duration); ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:4076 (North Holland, Haarlem, 18 May 2016, paras 2.9 and 8.2-8.7, operative part 10.8-10.9; after a rejected buy-out offer, earlier rent increases proved invalid, rent reduced and repayment ordered).