Federal Court of Justice, 11.07.2012, Ref.: VIII ZR 138/11
According to § 536 BGB, the tenant is exempt from paying the rent for the period in which the suitability of the rented property is cancelled due to a defect in the same.
The rent reduction therefore occurs automatically without the tenant having to invoke it.
For the defect, i.e. the unfavourable deviation of the actual condition from the target condition, the landlord has a quasi "guarantee liability", so that fault on the part of the landlord is not required.
However, a rent reduction is excluded if the tenant was aware of the defect when the tenancy agreement was concluded but did not report it to the landlord in good time, or caused the defect himself or is responsible for it.
A rent reduction in the amount of 100% only applies if the usability is completely eliminated and only for its duration.
In the above-mentioned decision, the Federal Court of Justice ruled on whether the tenant can be terminated without notice due to rent arrears if the tenant does not pay the rent due to an error about the cause of a defect.
Facts of the Case:
Defendants were tenants, plaintiffs were landlords of a house
The defendants were tenants of a detached house owned by the plaintiffs. In December 2008, the defendants informed the plaintiffs that mould and condensation were forming in the house due to structural defects.
Landlords were of the opinion that the tenants had caused mould due to incorrect heating and ventilation behaviour
On the occasion of an on-site visit in December 2008, the plaintiffs told the defendants that in their opinion the heating and ventilation behaviour of the defendants was responsible for this. The plaintiffs expressed this assumption in particular because there were two aquariums and a terrarium with snakes in the room.
Nevertheless, the defendants reduced the contractually agreed gross rent of € 1,550 per month for the months of March 2009 to June 2010 by € 310 (20 %) in each case.
In a written statement dated 7 January 2010, the plaintiffs then terminated the tenancy without notice due to the rent arrears of € 3,410 that had accrued by then.
After cancellation, the landlords sued for payment and eviction
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs demanded payment of the rent arrears accrued up to January 2010 plus interest and the eviction of the house.
After obtaining an expert opinion, the local court ruled on 27 May 2010 that there was no defect entitling the claimant to a reduction and upheld the claim in full.
The defendants then settled the rent arrears accrued for the months of February 2010 to May 2010 in June 2010 and paid the full rent again from July 2010 subject to reservation. During the appeal proceedings, the defendants settled the rent arrears still outstanding at that time in full in February 2011.
Court of Appeal had dismissed the action regarding the eviction
On the defendants' appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered the defendants to pay interest - after the parties had agreed that the dispute in the main action had been settled in the amount of € 3,410 - and dismissed the action with regard to the eviction.
In its reasoning, it based its decision on the fact that the defendants were not at fault for the non-payment of rent and that they had settled all arrears in February 2011.
The plaintiffs appealed against this decision.
Federal Court of Justice ruling
Federal Court of Justice considered eviction claim to be given
The Federal Court of Justice followed the plaintiffs' view. According to the BGH, the tenant is also responsible for the non-payment of rent in the context of Section 543 (2) BGB if he is guilty of intent or negligence.
This is the general standard of care set out in Section 276 (1) sentence 1 BGB.
There is also no reason for a more lenient liability and thus a privileged treatment of the tenant in cases in which the tenant incorrectly assesses the cause of a defect, in this case the formation of mould.
In case of doubt, the tenant should pay the rent under reservation and sue for it himself
In case of doubt, the tenant can pay the rent under reservation, so that he has the opportunity to clarify his rights in court without being exposed to the risk of termination without notice.
In the present case, default of payment could not be denied due to a lack of fault on the part of the defendant.
The defendants had to assume that the presence of two aquariums and a terrarium with snakes caused a higher level of humidity in the rented flat, which favoured the formation of mould, and that correspondingly higher requirements had to be placed on the ventilation behaviour.
The rent arrears were only paid in full in February 2011. As this payment was no longer made within the grace period of Section 569 (3) No. 2 BGB, it did not affect the validity of the termination of 7 January 2010, meaning that the defendants were obliged to evict the tenant.
Source: Federal Court of Justice
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.
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.