Munich Local Court, 30/09/2014, Ref.: 473 C 7411/14
If the landlord, one of his family members or members of his household wish to use the rented flat themselves, they can terminate the tenancy for personal use. The landlord must then justify in writing in the letter of cancellation why and for which person he needs the flat. It should be noted that a blocking period may apply. If a building is converted into owner-occupied flats during the tenancy period, termination for personal use is excluded for at least three years. In some cities, the blocking period can also be ten years. If the tenant does not agree with the termination for personal use, they can lodge an objection to the termination for personal use if moving out would mean particular hardship for them. If the personal use was only feigned, the tenant can even subsequently assert claims for damages against the landlord. These claims include, for example, relocation, estate agent and renovation costs as well as higher rental expenses for the new flat.
In the Munich Local Court case discussed here, the court had to decide whether a professional footballer was allowed to give notice to his tenant for personal use, even though he only wanted to live in the flat for a certain period of the year and otherwise lived abroad.
Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff in this legal dispute had purchased a 45.56 square metre flat in the Solln district of Munich in 2011. This flat had been let to the defendant tenant since February 2000.
Plaintiff was landlord and cancelled due to personal use
In April 2013, the plaintiff terminated the lease for personal use. As the reason for the cancellation, the plaintiff stated that he wanted to use the apartment for his own use together with his future wife. The termination was further justified by the fact that the plaintiff intended to marry in early summer and establish a residence in Munich together with his wife.
Plaintiff was a professional footballer and often worked abroad
Due to the plaintiff's profession as a professional football player for a Munich club, he would not always work in Munich. However, he would intend to keep the flat in dispute as his main residence together with his wife and to return there again and again and also use this flat during the winter break. Despite the notice of termination, the defendant did not vacate the flat as it considered the plaintiff's reason for termination to be pretextual.
Judgment of the District Court of Munich
When his tenant refused, the plaintiff sued for eviction
Due to the failure to vacate, the plaintiff finally filed an action for eviction with the Munich Local Court. The Munich Local Court followed the plaintiff's opinion and ruled that the defendant must vacate the flat. During the hearing of evidence, the court heard the plaintiff's wife as a witness.
During the hearing of evidence, the plaintiff's wife was heard on the issue of personal use
She stated that her husband worked in Serbia and that he had training twice a day. Most recently, she and her husband had lived in Munich, but separately. She was currently living in a flat in Serbia, but would now like to move back to Munich in order to be able to establish a main residence in Munich. As soon as her husband, i.e. the plaintiff, was free, he would also live together with the witness in the flat in Munich. The witness also stated that she and her husband had jointly decided that their recently born child should grow up in Germany. Another flat was not available. It was planned that the flat would be occupied by the witness and her young child for at least the next 3-4 years and that if the husband was free at weekends or during training-free periods, he would also live in the flat with the family. The witness also stated that she stayed at her mother's house near Landsberg during her visits to Germany. However, she did not have her own room in her mother's house, but slept and lived with her baby in the room of her disabled sister. Her sister always comes home at the weekend as she works in a sheltered workshop during the week and also spends the night there.
Court believed the wife and considered personal use to be given
The court believed the witness's statement. The court also did not see any unreasonable intention in the desire to acquire the property. In principle, the court was generally not allowed to review whether there were better or more sensible alternatives to the landlord's intention to use the property. The plaintiff's desire for a shared residence in Munich was understandable and reasonable. It was understandable that the plaintiff wanted to move into a flat in Munich together with his wife, who was from the Munich area.
Source: District Court of Munich
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, 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.