Bottrop Local Court, judgement of 02.04.2024, 8 C 183/23
Background of the Case
In the present case, the parties are disputing a claim for the surrender and eviction of a flat in Bottrop. The plaintiffs, tenants of the flat in dispute, initially paid their rent to the known landlord's account after the death of the original landlord. However, after the will was opened and the defendant was named as the heir, the plaintiffs deposited the rent for several months at Bottrop Local Court, as they doubted the defendant's status as heir and demanded a certificate of inheritance. Due to the resulting rent arrears, the defendant cancelled the tenancy, whereupon the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to establish that the tenancy had not been terminated by the cancellation.
Course of proceedings and declaration of settlement
In the course of the proceedings, the plaintiffs declared the original claim to be settled after the defendant filed a counterclaim for eviction and surrender of the flat. The plaintiffs then applied for a declaration that the legal dispute was settled on the merits. The defendant continued to demand the eviction and surrender of the flat, while the plaintiffs dismissed the counterclaim.
Legal assessment of the complaint
The court found that the action was admissible and well-founded. It was confirmed that the plaintiffs' declaration of settlement constituted an admissible amendment to the action and that the tenancy was not terminated by the defendant's cancellation. There were no grounds for termination pursuant to Section 543 (2) No. 3 BGB as there were no rent arrears. The plaintiffs had duly deposited the rents for the months in dispute, as there were justified doubts about the defendant's status as an heir.
Ignorance about the creditor position
The court recognised that the plaintiffs were unaware of the identity of the landlord, which constituted grounds for a deposit in accordance with Section 372 BGB. This ignorance was due to the lack of a certificate of inheritance, which could have served as the only proof of the heir's status. Although the defendant had disclosed the will, this was not sufficient to dispel the plaintiffs' doubts.
Assessment of the counterclaim
The defendant's counterclaim for eviction and surrender of the flat was dismissed as admissible but unfounded. The court found that the filing of the counterclaim constituted a finalising event with regard to the original claim. No further grounds for cancellation were established that would have supported the defendant's claim.
Judgement and consequences
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, as the termination was invalid and the defendant had no legitimate claim to eviction. The counterclaim was dismissed and the parties' tenancy remains in place. The deposit of rent by the plaintiffs was justified in view of the lack of a certificate of inheritance, as a result of which no rent arrears had arisen that could justify termination.
Conclusion
In this judgement, it was clarified that if it is unclear whether a landlord is an heir, tenants are entitled to deposit rent until a certificate of inheritance is presented. Termination of the tenancy on the basis of alleged rent arrears was therefore invalid and the claim for eviction and surrender of the flat was rejected.
