Court verdict No home cancellation due to personal use in case of illness of the renter

Illness of the renter may prevent termination due to personal use

In a recent court ruling, it was clarified that the termination of an apartment may fail because of its own needs for thereby caused existential health hazards of the tenant.

Serious health problems

About two years ago, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe made a ruling in which it was clarified that landlords can not simply put a renter at risk of severe health problems. The district court of Munich has now made a similar judgment and recently published.

According to a judgment of the district court Munich a termination due to own need at thereby caused existential health dangers of the tenant fail. (Image: BillionPhotos.com/fotolia.com)

Lawsuit of the landlord dismissed

According to a recent communication, the district court of Munich dismissed on 28.09.2017 the lawsuit against a 52-year-old tenant on the eviction of her rented one-bedroom apartment in Munich-Langwied and surrendering to the landlord pleading for own use.

According to the information, the complaining couple from the Dingolfing-Landau area had acquired the apartment rented to the defendant in 1998 in August 2016 in order to lend them to their 21-year-old daughter studying in Munich for the winter semester 2017.

Based on this own use, they announced the tenant in October 2016 to 31.07.2017.

The defendant, however, objected to the dismissal, stating that she was suffering from a contracted depressive disorder and an anxiety disorder and that the loss of housing and familiar surroundings would lead to an acute further worsening of her illness, suggesting acute suicidality.

Existential threat

The plaintiff's daughter stated in her testimony that she had seriously planned her later studies in Munich before graduation.

The defendant stated in court, since their youth to suffer from mental health problems and have already sought many unsuccessful for a replacement apartment.

The psychiatrist, who had been heard in court and had been treating the defendant for several years, testified that the patient had the view, her shelter, i. her home and familiar surroundings, having to leave her home as an existential threat, and her move would worsen her condition, both in terms of her depression and her anxiety disorder.

The danger of the realization of the suicidal ideation in the event that they would have to leave the apartment, the expert estimates because of the pre-existing for years, not to 100 percent, but even with inpatient treatment or at least with particularly close-knit medical support during a move as serious on.

Unacceptable hardness

The responsible judge at the district court Munich gave in the result of the defendant right.

"The witness credibly stated that her parents had bought the apartment to give her a good start to her studies. The fact that the witness did not look at the disputed apartment herself is astonishing, but for the court, according to the witness, the witness said there was no opportunity to do so and that her trust in her parents is so high that she will definitely would pull into one of them for you selected apartment, at least understandable. "The customer review has been automatically translated from German.

According to the judge, the tenancy is despite the effective personal need termination due to the request of the defendant gem. §§ 574 I, 574 a I, II BGB continue indefinitely.

"The termination of the lease, in the judgment of the Court of First Instance, gives the defendant an unacceptable degree of hardship, which can not be justified even in the light of the legitimate interests of the claimants. The defendant is unable to evacuate. "

Judgment is now final

As the judge explained, there is an eviction "if the tenant is due to his physical or mental condition is not able to find a replacement apartment and move there or if the health condition or the general living situation of the tenant would be significantly worsened by the move where even a serious risk of serious deterioration can justify the assumption of unacceptable hardship. "

The judge continued, "The defendants' years of mental health illnesses could be cured during the time they were admitted to a clinic to prevent suicide, but the court has ruled that after several therapies over the last nine years Stable phases only occurred in extremely manageable time periods, as the witness described and after the witness has classified the prospects of success of a one-year behavioral treatment prognosis rather reserved. (...)

From the point of view of the court, the decisive difference between the plaintiff's daughter and the defendant is that the plaintiff's 21-year-old daughter has no mental illness and is currently at the beginning of her academic life, which offers many opportunities for healthy people from the court's point of view. The plaintiffs' interest in obtaining the home must therefore be less favorable to the defendant's interest in the preservation of the dwelling, which is instrumental in keeping her health from deteriorating due to relocation. "

The judgment of the local court of Munich dated 28.09.2017, file number 433 C 10588/17, after rescinding the appeal since 18.12.2018 final.

According to the information, the (additional) psychiatric expert commissioned by the appeal court had confirmed the first-instance assessment of the treating colleague. (Ad)