Gelsenkirchen Local Court, 07 November 2011, Ref.: 3a C 299/11
Purchase does not cancel rent (Section 566 BGB). This principle applies in German tenancy law and means that the purchaser of a property or apartment building takes the place of the landlord with regard to the existing tenancy agreements upon acquisition of the property.
Even if the tenant has evidence of ownership, he is not legally obliged to check the ownership situation himself in order to actually pay the rent to the correct owner.
Section 566e BGB regulates the obligation to notify the transfer of ownership:
If the landlord informs the tenant that he has transferred ownership of the rented accommodation to a third party, he must accept the notified transfer against himself with regard to the tenant's rent claim, even if it has not taken place or is not effective.
The notification can only be withdrawn with the consent of the person designated as the new owner.
In the above-mentioned case, the Gelsenkirchen District Court now had to decide whether a tenant was in arrears with outstanding rent payments even though he had not been notified of the change of ownership by either the previous owner or the new owner.
Facts
The defendant concluded a rental agreement with the previous owner of a flat. After it learnt of the change of ownership, it stopped paying rent, first to the plaintiff and later, due to doubts about its ownership, to the administrator of the condominium owners' association (WEG). The plaintiff demanded that the defendant make the rent payments to her and provided proof of ownership in the form of an extract from the commercial register.
Cancellation and legal action
The plaintiff finally cancelled the rental agreement with the defendant due to two outstanding months' rent and filed an action to vacate the flat. The legal issues centred around the payment terms and the duty to provide information in the event of a change of ownership.
Decision of the Local Court of Gelsenkirchen
The Gelsenkirchen Local Court ruled in favour of the defendant. The court found that the defendant was not in default of payment, as the obligation to provide information about the change of ownership lay with the previous owner. The defendant had made all reasonable efforts to clarify the new ownership, while the plaintiff had failed to provide proof of ownership.
Significance of the Ruling
The ruling emphasises that tenants have a right to clarity about their landlord and that the responsibility to provide information about a change of ownership lies not with the tenant, but with the previous owner. The decision strengthens the position of tenants in similar conflicts and emphasises the need for landlords to act transparently.
Source: Gelsenkirchen Local 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, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.