Berlin Regional Court, 13.03.2015, Ref.: 65 S 396/14
The obligations within a tenancy agreement are largely defined by Section 535 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
Thus, the landlord is obliged by the rental agreement to grant the tenant the use of the rented property during the rental period. The landlord must leave the rented property to the tenant in a condition suitable for use in accordance with the contract and maintain it in this condition during the rental period. He shall bear the burdens resting on the rented property. On the other hand, the tenant is obliged to pay the landlord the agreed rent.
By concluding the rental agreement, the tenant therefore acquires the right to use the rented property in its entirety. In return, he is obliged to pay the rent. The scope of the leased property or the right to use it is determined by the contract or other agreements between the parties. A distinction must therefore be made as to whether the tenant is merely authorised to use a particular item or whether it is covered by the rental use.
If there is no information on individual points in the tenancy agreement or if only incomplete information is provided, the scope of the right of use must be determined by interpreting the agreement in accordance with § 157 BGB in good faith and according to the general view of the market.
Facts of the Case:
This case concerned the question of whether cellar rooms belonged to a flat even though they were not listed in the rental agreement but were handed over with the flat and were also integrated into the flat's electricity system with the power connection.
The tenant therefore sought a continuing right to possession of the basement premises. The court of first instance dismissed the landlord's action for eviction with regard to the cellar rooms.
Decision of the Berlin Regional Court:
The court dealt with the appeal against the judgement of the district court of Köpenick dated 14 August 2014, 11 C 71/14.
The appeal admissible pursuant to §§ 511 et seq. ZPO is only partially successful, as a different decision is only justified with regard to the counterclaim.
The defendants are not entitled to a claim for eviction and surrender of the two basement rooms in accordance with Section 546 BGB. The claim is excluded as the plaintiffs would be entitled to possession of the premises.
Even if the rental agreement did not state that the cellar rooms belonged to the flat, they were still part of the rented property. The plaintiffs had stated that the cellar rooms belonged to the flat when it was rented and had been handed over with the flat. In addition, an electricity connection for the cellar rooms was integrated into the flat's electricity system.
The defendants and counterclaimants did not sufficiently counter these allegations.
In the course of modernisation work, the electricity supply to the basement was integrated into that of the flat
The landlord had integrated the cellar rooms into the electricity supply of the associated flat during the modernisation project in 2004. It was therefore to be assumed that both parties agreed that the cellar rooms integrated into the electricity system of the respective flat were not only to be provided for use without obligation, but were part of the respective rented property and should belong to the flat.
As part of the leased property, the plaintiffs would therefore be entitled to a right of possession resulting from the tenancy within the meaning of Section 986 (1) BGB in accordance with Section 535 (1) sentence 1 BGB. It was irrelevant that the electricity connection could be disconnected again without great effort.
If the intention had been to use the basement rooms for other purposes, the landlord could have ensured the power supply by other means. For example, consumption could have been recorded individually and the costs charged to the respective parties responsible.
The further appeal was unsuccessful, as the plaintiffs were not entitled to reimbursement of the legal fees incurred for the rejection of a warning letter by the defendants.
There was no warning in breach of duty, as it was not unjustified. The fact that the plaintiffs were using their flat for commercial purposes could be inferred from the outdoor advertising on the plaintiffs' letterbox. If the address was also used as a postal address for commercial contacts, this constituted part of the plaintiff's commercial activity.
This creates an external effect that the landlord does not have to accept.
Unlike in labour law, the tenant is not entitled to a claim against the landlord to cease and desist or to withdraw a warning. Furthermore, the tenant is not entitled to a declaration that a warning was issued unjustly.
According to the case law of the BGH, a deviation in tenancy law from the practice under labour law is justified, as the employer's duty of care and the associated obligation under personal law cannot be found in tenancy law in anything approaching the same way. This means that there is no need to transfer the relevant labour law case law to tenancy law.
The contractual relationship between employee and employer is not comparable to a tenancy for residential property. The employee owes the employer his work performance made possible by his abilities and skills. Therefore, his contractual debt is essentially dependent on his personality and labour, which is why their assessment is essential for the employee's claims against the employer.
However, such a consideration cannot be made in the tenancy. The tenant essentially owes the payment of the rent. The appeal is therefore only partially justified.
Source: Berlin Regional Court
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.