{"id":11845,"date":"2025-07-13T12:47:22","date_gmt":"2025-07-13T12:47:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=11845"},"modified":"2025-07-13T12:49:44","modified_gmt":"2025-07-13T12:49:44","slug":"raeumungsklage-abgewiesen-wann-reicht-ein-streit-fuer-die-fristlose-kuendigung-des-mieters-nicht-aus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/action-for-eviction-dismissed-when-is-a-dispute-not-sufficient-for-termination-without-notice-by-the-tenant\/","title":{"rendered":"Action for eviction dismissed: When is a dispute not sufficient for the tenant's termination without notice?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Paderborn Local Court, 50b C 91\/24, 24.10.2024<\/p>\n

A recent case before Paderborn Local Court shows how high the requirements are for termination without notice under tenancy law - and why even serious conflicts do not always end the tenancy.<\/p>\n

<\/span>What happened? - The background to the case<\/span><\/h3>\n

At the centre of the case is a long-standing tenancy: the landlords wanted their tenant out of the flat after more than 20 years - without notice. This was triggered by a dispute in which the landlady claimed to have been physically assaulted by the tenant when she wanted to inspect structural damage. According to the landlady, this resulted in shock, haematomas and a visit to the doctor. In addition, the tenant had filed a lawsuit against the landlord for alleged lack of water pressure and use of the attic.<\/p>\n

The landlords terminated the tenancy without notice, or alternatively with due notice. However, the tenant denied any assault - there had only been a scuffle over the adhesive tape, but no physical attack. There were no witnesses to the actual incident.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The judgement: No eviction, no claim for surrender<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Paderborn Local Court dismissed the case. The tenant is allowed to stay, the landlords bear the costs. The court clarified: Neither the extraordinary cancellation (without notice) nor the ordinary cancellation<\/a> takes effect. The tenancy continues to exist.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Why did the court decide this way? - The reasoning in plain language<\/span><\/h3>\n

The central problem: it could not be proven that the alleged assault had actually taken place. Both sides described the incident differently, there were no witnesses and even the medical certificate could not be traced back to the dispute with certainty - it was only drawn up five days after the alleged attack. The judge followed the strict burden of proof in tenancy law: it is not the possibility or probability that counts, but the conviction of the truth of an allegation. The court was not able to win this conviction.<\/p>\n

The fact that the tenant had initiated other legal proceedings against the landlord in parallel was also not sufficient. The court made it clear: court proceedings, even if they are numerous, are generally not grounds for termination - as long as they are not obviously abusive or any communication between the parties has become impossible.<\/p>\n

<\/span>What does this mean for landlords and tenants? Practical tips from the judgement<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

<\/span>For landlords:<\/span><\/h4>\n