Berlin Regional Court, 11/08/2016, Ref.: 65 S 202/16
In principle, the tenant must grant the landlord access to the rented flat under certain circumstances. Certain circumstances are understood to mean an objective and specific reason, which must also be announced in good time in advance.
If the tenant then refuses access, they are in breach of their contractual ancillary obligations derived from Section 242 BGB (see BGH, judgement of 4 June 2014, loc. cit.).
The tenant's secondary obligations are limited to tolerating and facilitating the inspection. A direct appointment with the landlord's contractual partners may be in the tenant's interest, but is not regarded as an obligation.
Initial situation: Dispute between landlord and tenant
In this case, the landlord (plaintiff) was planning to modernise the bathroom in one of her rented flats. She wanted to inspect the bathroom in preparation for the modernisation. However, the tenant (defendant), who had lived in the flat for almost 20 years, refused access without any objective reason. As a result, the landlady gave the tenant notice to quit without notice.
Reasons for termination without notice
The landlord justified the termination without notice on the grounds that the tenant's repeated refusal had led to considerable delays and obstructions to the modernisation measures. However, it should be noted that the landlady did not attempt to organise a viewing of the flat again until around a year later.
Decision of the Berlin Regional Court
The Berlin Regional Court ruled that the termination without notice was invalid. Although the tenant had breached her contractual obligations in accordance with Section 242 BGB, termination without notice was not justified in the overall context. The court found that there was no urgency for the modernisation of the bathroom, as the landlady only became active again after a year. Furthermore, the modernisation of the bathroom was not of the same urgency as, for example, a dry rot renovation.
Weighing up the interests of both parties
The court also took into account the long tenancy period of almost 20 years, which influenced the decision. Overall, the court came to the conclusion that the landlord's legitimate interest in terminating the tenancy in accordance with Section 573 (2) No. 1 BGB was not sufficiently justified. In view of the circumstances, the termination without notice was therefore unlawful.
Source: Berlin Regional 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, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.