A tenant in Berlin had his tenancy terminated on the grounds of personal need. The tenant, who was born in 1949, had been living in the 85-square-meter rental apartment since 1986. In 2012, a new owner acquired the apartment in a compulsory auction. As the reason for terminating the tenancy due to own need as of June 30, 2017, the owner stated that his daughter wanted to take up studies in Berlin for the winter semester 2017/2018 and move into the apartment.
The letter of termination was served on the tenant by a lawyer in September 2016. The tenant objected to the termination of the tenancy and argued that there were reasons of hardship which made it impossible for him to move out of the rented apartment. After examining the facts, both the Local Court (AG) and the Regional Court (LG) rejected the action for eviction and the request to surrender the apartment. The tenancy was to be extended for an indefinite period under the same conditions pursuant to Section 574 (1) sentence 1 and Section 574a (1) sentence 1 BGB (AZ VIII ZR 6/19).
Even if the LG, unlike the AG, was of the opinion that the termination due to own need complied with the formal and material reasons, the hardship objection of the defendant nevertheless applied. Medical certificates attested to the poor state of health of the defendant, of which it was uncertain when this would improve. In addition, the defendant had been living in the apartment for about 30 years and was therefore strongly integrated into the social environment. There was a risk that his state of health could deteriorate after he moved out. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) allowed the plaintiff's appeal and referred the case to another chamber of the Regional Court for review. Because the available medical certificates were not sufficient. Rather, a court-ordered expert opinion would have to provide information on the nature, extent and effects of the tenant's condition.
Source: BGH
© fotolia.com
