Cancellation according to § 573a BGB: No privilege without land register entry
Anyone who buys a two-family house and moves in themselves often wants to terminate the existing tenancy in the same building. § Section 573a (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) provides landlords with a simplified termination option in a self-occupied building with no more than two flats - without having to demonstrate a legitimate interest within the meaning of Section 573 BGB.
The judgement of the Krefeld Regional Court of 15 October 2025 clarifies, however, that this privilege is only available to the legal landlord to. The beneficial owner who is not yet entered in the land register cannot invoke Section 573a BGB - even if they already live in the property and have been authorised by the previous owner to terminate the lease.
The facts: Moving in before transfer of ownership
The plaintiffs had purchased a two-party house and had moved into one of the two flats after the transfer of benefits and encumbrances. The other flat was still rented out. Even before they were entered in the land register, they cancelled the tenancy on the basis of Section 573a BGB. The basis for this was a notarised authorisation by the previous owners.
The Nettetal Local Court initially ruled in favour of the eviction action. It considered the plaintiffs to be „landlords“ within the meaning of Section 573a BGB despite the lack of a land register entry.
The Krefeld Regional Court took a different view - and dismissed the case.
Landlord is not the same as beneficial owner
The central point of the decision is the question as to who was responsible at the time of termination. Landlord was. The district court clarifies:
- The original rental agreement was between the defendant and the previous owner.
- There was no assumption of contract.
- A legal transfer in accordance with Section 566 (1) BGB requires the transfer of ownership in rem ahead.
The mere conclusion of a purchase agreement is not sufficient. The transfer of ownership in the land register is decisive. Only with this does the purchaser enter into the tenancy by operation of law („purchase does not break the tenancy“).
No implied assumption of contract
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had agreed to assume the contract by paying the rent to them. The court denied this.
A transfer of contract requires a tripartite legal transaction or at least the tenant's unambiguous consent. Payment to a new payee alone is not sufficient - especially if the tenant assumes that the transfer of ownership is imminent anyway.
For an implied authorisation, the necessary awareness of the declaration was already lacking.
Authorisation does not replace own right of termination
The notarised authorisation did not help the plaintiffs either. They were only able to exercise the previous owners' right of cancellation. However, they no longer lived in the building. This meant that the decisive requirement of Section 573a BGB was not met: the landlord and tenant living together in a two-party house.
The privilege is personal. It is linked to the specific housing situation of the landlord - not that of the beneficial owner.
No analogy in favour of the beneficial owner
The Regional Court particularly clearly rejects an analogous application of Section 573a BGB. An analogy requires an unintended loophole. The court did not see such a gap.
The legislator has deliberately linked the transfer of the tenancy to the clearly comprehensible criterion of transfer of ownership. This provides legal certainty for tenants. If beneficial ownership were to suffice, the tenant would have to check complex contractual agreements - an unreasonable situation.
The waiting period until entry in the land register is usually short and acceptable for the purchaser.
Second cancellation also invalid
A later cancellation after the transfer of ownership was also unsuccessful - simply because it was not received by the defendant. No effectiveness without receipt (§ 130 BGB).
Significance for practice
The judgement has considerable practical relevance for purchasers of two-family houses:
- § 573a BGB requires the Legal landlord status ahead.
- Ownership is only transferred upon entry in the land register.
- Economic ownership is not sufficient.
- Notarial authorisations do not replace a right of termination.
- Premature cancellations are invalid and can result in costly lawsuits.
The appeal was allowed as it has not yet been clarified by the supreme court whether and under what conditions a purchaser can assert personal grounds for cancellation before the transfer of ownership.
Conclusion: patience until the land register entry
The Krefeld Regional Court strengthens legal certainty in residential tenancy law. Anyone who acquires a rented two-family house and wishes to invoke the cancellation privilege of Section 573a BGB must wait for the transfer of ownership.
Economic proximity to the property is not sufficient. The only decisive factor is the legal position in rem - documented in the land register.
