Tenancy Law: When Is Overcrowding of an Apartment or House Present?

District Court Paderborn, Judgment from October 19, 2023, Case No.: 50c C 156/23

The case discussed here deals with the overcrowding of an apartment. But when exactly does overcrowding occur? There are various views on this:

• • • Overcrowding only becomes relevant if the living space is less than 15 square metres per adult or per two to twelve-year-old child or if more than two people are accommodated per room.
    • Another common view is that there is no overcrowding as long as there is a room of around 12 square metres for each adult or two children up to the age of 13, or an average of 10 square metres per person when accommodating families.

Background of the Case

The plaintiff, who works part-time and also receives state social benefits, is a tenant of a row house. The house is occupied by her, her son, and a subtenant. The landlord, the defendant, had previously agreed to sublet a room to Mr. U. Now, the plaintiff plans to sublet two more rooms to new subtenants, which the defendant refused. This led to the lawsuit, where the plaintiff seeks permission to sublet these rooms.

Disputes and Arguments of the Parties

The plaintiff claims that in 2004, the then-property manager verbally granted her a general permission to sublet. She argues that she has a legitimate interest in subletting, as it would ensure that rent is paid on time and in full. Additionally, she notes that her son is no longer regularly living in the house due to his studies, leaving sufficient space for the new subtenants.

The defendant argues that the house is already overcrowded with the current number of residents. He suspects that the plaintiff could profit from subletting and points to damage and alleged neglect of the rental property. He fears that further occupancy could worsen the condition of the apartment.

Legal Foundations and Evaluation of the Changes to the Claim

The court ruled that the repeated amendments to the claim were permissible and appropriate. The admissibility was affirmed because the changes concerned the existing dispute and contributed to clarifying the entire situation. Through the amendments, the core of the dispute – the legitimate interest in subletting – was still considered and included in the decision.

Legitimate Interest of the Plaintiff in Subletting

The court found that the plaintiff has a legitimate interest in subletting, as required by § 553 para. 1 BGB (German Civil Code). This interest exists because the plaintiff can reduce her financial burden through subletting income and become less dependent on state benefits. There was no evidence of profit-seeking. Moreover, the composition of the household had changed as the plaintiff’s son had mostly left the house due to his studies.

Defendant’s Counterarguments and Their Evaluation

The defendant’s objections to the subletting did not convince the court. His concerns about possible overcrowding and additional damage were deemed unfounded. The court found that the living space and the number of residents complied with legal requirements, meaning no overcrowding was present. Furthermore, the alleged damages could not be attributed to any breach of duty by the plaintiff. General concerns about future damage are not sufficient grounds to deny subletting permission.

Court Decision

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that she is entitled to permission to sublet. The plaintiff’s legitimate interest in improving her financial situation and reducing rent pressure outweighed the defendant’s concerns. It was determined that neither overcrowding nor other significant reasons were present that would justify denying the subletting request.