OSAKA--A court here has allowed an 86-year-old woman to remain in the aging wooden “nagaya” (row house) she has lived in most of her life, although she is the last remaining tenant. 

The owner, who is seeking to demolish the building, filed an eviction notice, and the court recommended that the two parties negotiate a settlement.

However, the woman refused to leave the home she has lived in since childhood, saying, “I will stay here until I die.”

The owner argued that the row house was too dilapidated and offered the woman an apartment nearby to live in. 

But the elderly resident insisted on staying in her home, to which she is deeply attached.

The Osaka District Court dismissed the owner’s claim, recognizing the importance of the elderly living in familiar places for their mental stability and safety.

The woman’s lawyer said, “The ruling was significant in protecting the foundation of the life of an elderly person living alone.”

‘TOO DECREPIT’ TO LIVE IN

According to court records, the row house was built around 1941 in Osaka and four households lived there at the time.

About 30 years ago, two households agreed to vacate due to aging of the structure and part of the building was demolished. It left only the households of the woman and her neighbor living in the row house.

A few years ago, the neighbor passed away, and in 2018, the woman’s husband died. The woman became the only resident living in the row house.

“The building is too decrepit to continue the contract,” the owner told the woman in 2021.

But she refused to vacate. The following year, the owner filed a lawsuit with the Osaka District Court.

DESPITE NEW HOME OFFERED NEARBY 

The Law on Land and Building Leases stipulates that a landlord can request that the tenant terminate the lease if there is a legitimate reason.

In the lawsuit, the focus was whether the owner’s request was justified.

The plaintiff explained that the owner had negotiated in good faith with the woman and presented three reasons that she should vacate the premises.

These were that the row house was dilapidated and dangerous; the repair costs were too high; and demolition would enable a more beneficial use of the land and the surrounding area, which he also owns.

The owner also offered the woman a new residence in an apartment building he owns nearby.

“The apartment room that can be offered is on the first floor and is easy for the elderly person to live in,” the owner side said in a written statement. “It faces south, is suitable for gardening and has enough space to accommodate a Buddhist altar.”

The owner explained that the proposed monthly rent for the apartment is 63,000 yen ($443) but he would rent it to her 36,000 yen, the same as the rent for the row house.

The owner argued to the court that “the fact that he had negotiated with the woman with the utmost consideration for the woman’s living situation should be taken into account.”

‘GIVEN MY AGE’

On the other hand, the woman countered that although the row house is aging, it is still in a habitable condition and she has been making repairs on her own.

“I have lived in this house for many years since I was a child, along with my parents and children. This is a home I’m deeply attached to and leaving it would be a huge burden,” she said.

She added that she would be the last generation of her family to live in the house.

“I hope I can live peacefully until I reach the end of my life,” she requested.

Experts say that in similar lawsuits, landlords and tenants often reach a settlement by offering eviction compensation to the residents.

The Osaka District Court recommended a settlement be negotiated, which the owner accepted. However, the elderly resident declined.

A judge asked the woman if she would consider moving under certain conditions or if she felt she had to stay at all costs.

The woman replied, “Well, I am old, so I would be happy if (the owner) let me continue living here.”

Judge Satoshi Kiyama dismissed the owner’s claim, citing no concrete plans for the row house after demolition and no urgent financial need for the owner.

“Demolition cannot be considered the only way to maintain a livelihood,” he said.

Kiyama stressed the importance of the elderly living in familiar places, saying, “A high degree of necessity is recognized from the perspective of mental stability and danger prevention.”

Kenji Iwasa, the lawyer representing the woman, said, “She has been living here for many years, shopping in her favorite supermarket and enjoying conversations with her friends in the neighborhood. Her life is well-established.”

The owner appealed the district court’s decision.