No self-service termination via 80 for second home

Published by

Mechanics of personal use termination

If the landlord wants to move in, he can cancel, § 573 Paragraph 2 Number 2 BGB, However, the renter may object and demand that the lease be continued temporarily, in exceptional cases also indefinitely, if there is a particular personal hardship, Civil Code § 574, The law does not cite rule examples, but leaves it to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. The only exception: "if adequate replacement living space can not be procured on reasonable terms".

Mechanics of hardness

In order to object to a particular personal hardship, the lessee must object in writing to the notice of termination and present his reasons, no later than two months before the end of the period of notice, § 574b Civil Code, Then the landlord must complain of eviction and surrender and the judge to weigh: is the objection really a hardship in the sense of the law? If so, the next consideration is whose interest outweighs the concrete case. So it depends on the reasons, which leads the landlord in his dismissal.

If, from the point of view of the court, the interests of the tenant are outweighed, the renter may demand that the tenancy be continued for as long as reasonably possible taking into account all circumstances. If this is only reasonable for the landlord if the terms of the contract are adjusted, one must agree to such or the court or tribunal, § 574a Civil Code.

Age as hardness

In this context, yesterday a decision of the LG Berlin was known (Az 67 S 345 / 18). The verdict itself is currently not in the legal databases, it is apparently not yet published (but it will certainly soon). However, a press release circulated with some information, for example. here and here , After that, only the age can be a possible cause of hardness. The tenants of the case at the district court were at the time of judgment 84 and 87 years old and lived in the apartment at the time of termination since 18 years, so were about to retire there. The landlord did not want to use the apartment as a main residence, ie (presumably) as a second home, and there were also financial aspects (which remains unclear in the press).


In essence, I consider the idea that people from a certain age can not be displaced against their will, right. However, it will always be a case by case decision. The tenants here were lucky. It is clear from the considerations of the district court that the case could have been different if the landlord's interests differ. Which of these could be exact remains reserved for future jurisprudence.

It is also unclear whether the court discussed an adaptation of the terms of the contract. Ultimately, this would probably be a rent increase out of line, which compensates that the owner can not use the apartment as he wanted. Because that is so, he now has to organize it differently economically - and the tenant may pay. Depending on how sustainable the landlord lawyer worked on this point, we will read or not read something in the publication of the decision - so it remains exciting.

Proper old-age provision protects against dismissals

Anyone who lives in property in their old age can not be terminated and does not need to fear a rent increase or legal proceedings. With long-term real wealth planning that is possible for most people, because you have to pay rent anyway - then you can do that as a credit installment into your own property. Anyone who buys their first home with 30 has paid them off well before retirement. Especially in cases such as the present one, where a couple relocates to a new flat when they retire, it makes sense to do this with the life-saving property saved over life rather than as a tenant. Then nobody can talk in thirds more.

In my book "Capital Accumulation and Passive Income with Real Estate" I explain how it works: