Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, 17.01.2011, Case No.: 2-11 S 7/11
If a landlord intends to remodel or renovate a rented apartment or house and the tenant cannot remain in the property during the renovation, the landlord must terminate the rental agreement with the tenant. This is known as a termination for economic utilization („Verwertungskündigung“). To be legally effective, such a termination must be reasonable. Reasonableness is affirmed if the economic utilization is rational and sensible from a business standpoint and not merely speculative.
Facts of the case
The landlord owned an apartment with a 20-year renovation backlog.
The plaintiff in this case was the owner of an apartment that had not been renovated for over 20 years. In other parts of the building, renovation work was already underway, and the tenant of these other premises was also planning to rent the defendant’s apartment at a significantly higher price from the plaintiff.
Eviction lawsuit due to tenant’s refusal to vacate voluntarily
When the defendant did not vacate the apartment following the termination for economic utilization, the plaintiff filed an eviction lawsuit for the return of the apartment. Before this, the plaintiff had offered the defendant 13 alternative apartments in the same building or in the immediate vicinity, as well as a moving cost allowance of EUR 1,000.
Ruling of the District Court of Frankfurt am Main
The landlord is otherwise hindered from reasonable economic utilization.
The Frankfurt/Main District Court followed the plaintiff’s argument and ruled that the defendant must vacate the apartment. The plaintiff had based the termination on a legitimate interest in the reasonable economic utilization of the building, as he intended to rent the apartment occupied by the defendant to someone who was already using the rest of the floor. Furthermore, the defendant would not be able to afford the rent applicable after renovation, and therefore could no longer be considered a suitable tenant. The existing tenancy thus prevented the plaintiff from economically utilizing the apartment and caused him significant disadvantages.
Termination is not abusive
The court also rejected any claim of abusive termination, as the defendant had already been offered 13 alternative apartments and a moving cost allowance of EUR 1,000. The plaintiff therefore had a legitimate interest in reclaiming the apartment under §§ 573 (1), (2) No. 3 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
Source: District Court of Frankfurt am Main
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.