Facts
The landlord of an apartment block sued a tenant to evict him from his flat. The landlord terminated various tenancy agreements in an apartment building on the grounds of personal use for the beneficiary. The tenancy agreement of the defendant tenant was concluded for a limited period from 21/05/2019 to 31/05/2020. There was an option to increase the rent as of 1 June 2020. During this period, there were various disagreements between the tenant and the landlord, as well as a repair action due to excessive lead content in the drinking water. However, the local court ruled that there was no effective time limit. In August 2021, the plaintiff gave notice of termination to the defendant on the grounds of personal use, although a detached flat in the same residential building was vacant. According to the landlord, however, this was unsuitable for his nephew who was moving in.
IS THE TERMINATION FOR PERSONAL USE SUFFICIENTLY JUSTIFIED?
For a termination in accordance with § 573 III BGB, there must be a justified interest. According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case if it is clear from the letter of cancellation that the landlord wishes to let the rooms to a person who needs them or wishes to occupy them himself and there are reasonable grounds for doing so. These reasons are reasonable if they show that the landlord has a legitimate interest in using the property. Stating ‘personal use’ or ‘other use’ as a reason is not sufficient. In principle, reasons for termination can be kept more general and do not have to be stated in detail to the tenant. The background to this is that the landlord’s pursuit of interests should not be made unreasonably difficult. Nevertheless, the grounds for termination must be sufficiently comprehensible and plausible for the tenant.
AG HAMBURG-MITTE (DISTRICT COURT), JUDGEMENT OF 04.05.2022 – 49 C 438/21
In its judgement of 4 May 2022 – 49C 438/21, the AG Hamburg ruled that the termination of personal use must be sufficiently justified. On the one hand, this was contradicted by the fact that various flats of a similar size had become vacant in the same residential building in recent years, often rented out for a limited period of time. In addition, in these cases the landlord had already registered his own requirements for these flats beforehand, and had ultimately repeatedly let them to other tenants. The landlord’s justification that the flat was unfavourable in terms of floor location and too large was not sufficient for the Hamburg District Court to justify a legitimate interest in using the property. The action for eviction was dismissed.