Supreme Court, Second Petty Bench · September 14, 2026 · Reiwa 7 (2025) (Ju) No. 1337 · Judgment; final appeal dismissed

The Court upheld a judgment allowing a ward to claim damages equivalent to rent from a disaster evacuee who stayed in ward housing after the period of emergency temporary housing had ended.

Claim for surrender of a building, etc.

Facts

The appellant and her husband lost their home in the Great East Japan Earthquake. A ward in Tokyo permitted them to live in ward housing free of charge, and from April 2013 this was treated as the provision of emergency temporary housing under the Disaster Relief Act. The prefectural governor gave notice that the provision would end on March 31, 2018, and the ward asked them to leave by that date. They did not leave, the husband's health having deteriorated, and the appellant surrendered the unit on October 19, 2021. The ward claimed damages equivalent to rent for the period from April 1, 2018 until surrender, on the ground that the occupation was without title.

Issue

Whether the claim for damages equivalent to rent fails if the ward's demand to vacate amounts to an abuse of rights or a breach of good faith.

Ruling

The Court held that, even if the ward's demand to vacate were an abuse of rights or a breach of good faith, it would not follow that no damages equivalent to rent arise from the occupation, so the argument lacked its premise. It found the lower court's decision to allow the claim justifiable. There is a dissenting opinion. In outline, it states that the ward mayor ended the provision without the necessary consultation with the prefectural governor, contrary to the purpose of the Disaster Relief Act and related law, and that the judgment below should be quashed and the case remanded for further examination of whether there was an abuse of rights.

Provisions

Disaster Relief Act, art. 4(1)(i); Local Autonomy Act, art. 238-4(7)