Berlin Regional Court, judgement of 18.08.2021, ref.: 64 S 261/20
Due to high rental costs and a shortage of living space, more and more people are deciding to form a shared flat. A shared flat is therefore always created when several people live together in a flat in order to reduce costs. Communal areas such as the kitchen, bathroom and hallway are shared. However, many people do not realise that the common purpose means that the residents of a shared flat form a civil law partnership (BGB Gesellschaft or GbR) in accordance with § 705 BGB. This in turn can give rise to a wide range of problems for the tenancy law situation of the flat share as a whole and the individual flat share residents.
In the case discussed here, the question was whether the residents of the shared flat have a claim against the landlord to have the new residents included in the tenancy agreement instead of the previous residents.
Facts of the Case:
Seven-member flatmates sued their landlord for consent to take in the new flatmates
The plaintiffs were the members of a seven-person flat-sharing community in a 240 m² flat in Berlin. Four of the seven members no longer lived in the flat, but sublet their rooms. The landlord refused to include the new members in the tenancy agreement, so the flatmates decided to take legal action to obtain the landlord's consent to amend the contract accordingly.
Landlord refuses and sees no obligation
However, the landlord refused and argued that she was not obliged to do so and that by accepting the new tenants, she would have to release the old ones from liability. There was no provision in the tenancy agreement regarding a change of tenant.
The Charlottenburg Local Court, which was the court of first instance, upheld the claim and ordered the landlord to amend the contract. The landlord appealed against this judgement.
Decision of the Berlin Regional Court:
No right of the plaintiffs to consent to the replacement of the 4 new tenants
The Berlin Regional Court did not consider the flat-sharing community to be entitled to the landlord's consent and justified this as follows: With regard to the question of whether flatmates have a right to the landlord's consent to the replacement of individual flatmates, there are two opposing views in the literature.
According to a widespread view, the flat-sharing community could be entitled to the landlord's consent to the replacement of individual flat-sharing community members if it was obvious to the landlord when the tenancy agreement was concluded that the tenants wanted to use the flat as a flat-sharing community and he had to assume that there would be a fluctuation of flat-sharing community members over the course of the tenancy period (cf. Gsell et al./Heinig, beck-online.Großkommentar BGB as at 01/05/2021, Section 414 marginal no. 58; MüKo BGB/Häublein, 8th ed. 2020, Section 535 marginal no. 61; both quoted from beck-online).
These requirements should already be met if several young students or four people who - obviously recognisably - are not related to each other either as relatives or as life partners conclude an open-ended tenancy agreement for a flat together as co-tenants (see LG Munich I, WuM 1982, 189 f.; LG Berlin - 66 S 66/19 -, decision of 24 May 2019). Where such a claim by tenants using a flat as a shared flat to amend the tenancy agreement was recognised by appeal courts, it was often the case that the tenants had expressly formulated their need for a later admission of further or new members of the shared flat before the contract was concluded (see LG Karlsruhe, WuM 1992, 45 f. and BVerfG, ibid; LG Berlin - 65 S 314/15 -, Urt. v. 23.03.2016, WuM 2016, 553 et seq.) or that the landlord had already enabled the replacement of individual flatmates several times in the course of the tenancy, some of which lasted many years, by agreeing to amendments to the contract, i.e. had at least de facto recognised such a need and a related claim of the respective tenants (see LG Göttingen, NJW-RR 1993, 783 et seq. and BVerfG, GE 1993, 358; LG Frankfurt/M., WuM 2012, 192 et seq.; LG Berlin - 65 S 375/16 -, Urt. v. 11.01.2017).
The opposing view, on the other hand, sees no legal claim against the landlord to release a specific tenant from the contract and replace them with another tenant (see Schmidt-Futterer/Blank, Mietrecht, 14th ed. 2019, Section 540 marginal no. 19). 19); the members of a shared flat are instead limited to the right to sublet the flat on a pro rata basis in accordance with Section 553 BGB if the tenancy agreement does not provide for a provision for the replacement of individual members of the shared flat (see LG Hamburg, WuM 1985, 82 f.; LG Köln, NJW-RR 1991, 1414; LG Trier, WuM 1997, 548; LG Berlin - 65 S 176/19 -, Urt. v. 17.04.2020, GE 2020, 805 f.).
Berlin Regional Court follows contrary opinion and sees no entitlement to tenant replacement
This view was also followed by the Berlin Regional Court. In the opinion of the court, a landlord cannot be expected to agree to a change of tenants for reasons of contractual autonomy, even if the landlord knew when the contract was concluded that the tenants wanted to run a shared flat and therefore had an interest in accepting new members into the flat when individual tenants moved out.
Such a claim by tenants renting a flat to run a shared flat could amount to the landlord dedicating the flat as a shared flat once and for all and remaining permanently bound by the tenancy agreement, as the respective members of the shared flat could transfer the tenancy agreement to ever new generations of shared flat residents without the landlord being able to terminate the agreement at any time or assume that the tenancy would ever end - for example due to the tenants moving out or dying.
Such a claim would mean that the landlord would have to tolerate a shared flat in the flat forever
In contrast, the interests of the members of a shared flat could generally be adequately safeguarded by the "subletting solution"; they are not necessarily dependent on a corresponding amendment to the main tenancy agreement in order to continue the shared flat with a successor when an original co-tenant moves out of the flat. Rather, they could achieve this goal by subletting the flat to the new member of the flat share on a pro rata basis.
Since the tenancy agreement does not expressly provide for a procedure for the replacement of individual tenants or a claim by the plaintiffs in this regard, the action cannot be upheld, contrary to the opinion of the district court, because the parties had agreed to such a procedure or a claim by the plaintiffs in this regard through many years of practice. With the first addendum to the rental agreement, the defendant voluntarily agreed to replace five of the six original tenants with new flatmates with effect from 1 March 2017. At the same time, however, the total number of tenants had been increased from six to seven and an increase in rent had also been agreed, so that this addendum agreement could not be interpreted as meaning that the defendant had wanted to commit to unconditionally agreeing to further future tenant changes at the request of the tenants.
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 changes in the subject matter, liability and guarantees are excluded.Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the legal field, we exclude liability and warranties.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221- 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.