Court ruling: No apartment termination due to personal needs in the event of illness of the tenant

Court ruling: No apartment termination due to personal needs in the event of illness of the tenant

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Illness of the tenant can prevent termination due to personal needs

In a recent court ruling, it was clarified that the termination of an apartment due to personal needs could result in the existential health risks of the tenant.

Serious health problems

Around two years ago, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe passed a judgment in which it was made clear that landlords cannot simply put a tenant out of the door in the event of serious health problems. The Munich District Court has now issued a similar judgment and recently published it.

The landlord's suit was dismissed

According to a current announcement, the Munich District Court dismissed the lawsuit on September 28, 2017 against a 52-year-old tenant for vacating the one-room apartment she had rented in Munich-Langwied and handing it over to the landlords who had sued for their own use.

According to the information, the complaining couple from the Dingolfing-Landau area had acquired the apartment that had been rented to the defendant in August 2016, in order to make it available to their 21-year-old daughter, who was then studying in Munich, for the winter semester 2017.

Based on their own needs, they terminated the tenant in October 2016 on July 31, 2017.

However, the defendant contested the dismissal on the grounds that she was suffering from a consolidated depressive disorder and an anxiety disorder and that the loss of her home and familiar surroundings would lead to an acute further worsening of her illnesses, assuming acute suicidality.

Existential threat

The plaintiff's daughter stated in her testimony that she had seriously planned her later studies in Munich before she left school.

The defendant stated in court that she had suffered from mental health problems since her youth and had often tried unsuccessfully to find a replacement apartment.

The psychiatrist, who was heard in court and had been treating the defendant for several years, testified that the patient perceive her home and her familiar surroundings as an existential threat and her move would worsen, both in terms of her depression and her anxiety disorder.

The expert does not estimate the danger of the suicide idea to come true in the event that she has to leave the apartment because of the previous illnesses he has been treating for years, but even with inpatient treatment or at least with particularly close medical supervision during a move a.

Unacceptable hardness

The competent judge at the Munich District Court found the defendant right.

“The witness credibly stated that her parents had bought the apartment to give her a good start to her studies. The fact that the witness did not look at the apartment in dispute is surprising, but it is for the court after the witness's statement that there was no opportunity and that her trust in her parents was so high that she definitely did would move into an apartment they chose for them, at least understandably. "

According to the judge, the tenancy is despite the effective termination of personal needs based on the defendant's application according to §§ 574 I, 574 a I, II BGB to continue indefinitely.

“In the opinion of the court, the termination of the tenancy signifies an unreasonable hardship for the defendant, which cannot be justified even if the plaintiffs' legitimate interests are valued. The defendant is unable to vacate. "

Judgment is now final

As the judge explained, there is an inability to vacate the property "if the tenant is unable to find a replacement apartment due to his or her physical or mental condition and move there, or if the tenant's state of health or general living situation would be significantly impaired by the move , although the serious risk of a significant deterioration in health can justify the assumption of unreasonable hardship. "

The judge continued: “The court believes that the defendant's mental illnesses, which have existed for years while she is being hospitalized to prevent suicide, could be cured, despite having undergone various therapies over the past nine years stable phases only occurred in extremely manageable periods, as the witness described and after the witness assessed the chances of success of a one-year behavioral therapy treatment rather cautiously. (…)

From the court's point of view, the decisive difference between the plaintiff's daughter and the defendant is that the plaintiff's 21-year-old daughter has no mental illnesses and that she is just at the beginning of her studies, which from the court's point of view offers healthy people a variety of options. The plaintiffs' interest in obtaining the apartment must therefore be less than the defendant's interest in receiving the apartment, which is decisive in ensuring that their health does not deteriorate further due to the move. ”

The judgment of the Munich Local Court of September 28, 2017, file number 433 C 10588/17, has been final since December 18, 2018 after the appeal was withdrawn.

According to the information, the (additional) psychiatric expert commissioned by the Court of Appeals confirmed the first instance assessment of the treating colleague. (ad)

Author and source information

Video: Late Rent and Roommate Vent (January 2023).