![\"What](\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Pflichten_-Mieter_und_Vermieter.png\")
<\/p>\n
<\/span>Facts of the tenancy law case:<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/span>Instead of part of the rent, the tenant was obliged to provide certain services<\/span><\/h3>\nIn the case before the Gie\u00dfen Regional Court, the parties had agreed that the tenant would take on certain tasks in the communal areas of the building and support the landlord, who also lived in the building. When the landlord moved into a retirement home, he no longer needed this support and sent the tenant a new draft of the tenancy agreement with a standard local rent. When the tenant rejected the contract amendment, the landlord cancelled the tenancy agreement. On 22 July 2022, he brought an action against the tenant for eviction and surrender of the rented premises before Giessen Local Court.<\/p>\n
<\/span>After the services (gardening) were no longer needed, the landlord wanted the standard local rent<\/span><\/h3>\nThe parties had agreed in Section 17 of their rental agreement that the defendant's performance obligations should constitute consideration for a lower rent. Therefore, the amount of the rent was to be renegotiated if one of the counter-performances was cancelled. After the plaintiff decided to move to a retirement home following a fall on 15.01.22, he no longer required the contractually agreed support services from the defendant. Despite the agreement, the defendant had not taken over the maintenance of the garden up to this point. The plaintiff therefore sent the defendant a new rental agreement at the beginning of March 2022, with a rent that was customary for the location.<\/p>\n
<\/span>When the tenant refused to conclude a new contract, the landlord cancelled the rental agreement<\/span><\/h3>\nAs the defendant did not sign this, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy without notice on 30 March 2022 with effect from 31 March 2022, or alternatively at the earliest possible date, stating a deadline for eviction of 30 April 2022. The defendant is of the opinion that the termination is invalid. \u00a7 Section 17 of the rental agreement merely establishes an obligation of the parties to negotiate an adjustment of the rent, but no right of termination if the parties do not reach an agreement in this regard. Furthermore, the sending of the new rental agreement by the plaintiff did not constitute a willingness to negotiate.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Nevertheless, the tenant vacated the rented property following an action for eviction, after which the parties argued about the costs<\/span><\/h3>\nAfter the defendant vacated the rented property and handed it over to the plaintiff on 31 August 2022, the plaintiff declared the action settled and requested that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs of the legal dispute. The Giessen District Court set aside the costs of the legal dispute by order dated 21 October 2022 in accordance with Section 91a ZPO, stating that this was the rule if, as in this case, no evidence had been taken. The defendant lodged an immediate appeal against this decision on 3 November 2022 in accordance with Section 567 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a result of which the Giessen Local Court referred the matter to the Giessen Regional Court on 28 November 2022.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Decision of the Regional Court of Gie\u00dfen<\/u><\/span><\/h2>\n<\/span>The court ruled that the landlord had the right to terminate the contract<\/span><\/h3>\nThe court ruled that the appeal was admissible but not well-founded. However, the decision on costs by the Giessen Local Court was not overturned on the basis of the principles of reformatio in peius.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff had a right to terminate the tenancy on the basis of the agreement in Section 17 of the tenancy agreement and the tenancy agreement was therefore terminated by the notice of termination on 30 April 2022.<\/p>\n
Firstly, the court stated that, contrary to the assumption of the Gie\u00dfen district court, the decision on costs did not depend on the taking of evidence. The only decisive factor was whether Section 17 of the tenancy agreement gave rise to a right of termination on the part of the landlord. This was the case here; the landlord could terminate the tenancy agreement for cause.<\/p>\n
<\/span>It had been agreed in the rental contract that there would be a right of cancellation if the service obligation ceased to apply<\/span><\/h3>\nThe plaintiff cited the future cancellation of the defendant's performance obligation set out in Section 17 of the rental agreement as good cause for extraordinary termination in accordance with Section 543 (1) BGB. Good cause requires that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to adhere to the contract until the expiry of the notice period, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and in particular weighing up the interests of both parties. In this regard, it must first be taken into account that the cancellation of the requirement for consideration is the responsibility of the plaintiff, but in any case represents a legitimate interest in amending the contract. On the other hand, the rental agreement expressly stipulates that the performance obligation constitutes consideration for a lower rent.<\/p>\n
Therefore, like the payment of rent, it is a primary obligation of the tenant, not merely an ancillary service. This agreement constitutes a service contract linked to the rental agreement, which is synallagmatic to the provision of the rented premises. This service contract can therefore be terminated with the notice period of \u00a7 621 No. 3 BGB if the consideration ceases to exist.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Tenant could no longer avoid paying proper rent<\/span><\/h3>\nIn addition, the sending of the new tenancy agreement by the landlord on 7 March 2022 should be seen as an offer to conclude a contract. This is usually to be understood as entering into contract negotiations and therefore complies with the provisions of Section 17 of the tenancy agreement. The pre-formulation of the contract does not indicate a lack of willingness to negotiate on the part of the landlord, but merely a statement that he wishes to conclude a contract on these terms. Furthermore, the contractual obligation to negotiate could not restrict the landlord's right of cancellation. This would not correspond to the meaning and purpose of the provision. The tenant could then permanently evade a rent increase by pretending to be willing to negotiate without ever concluding a contract at an adjusted rent, and the provision would ultimately come to nothing.<\/p>\n
Source: LG Gie\u00dfen<\/p>\n
In the case before the Gie\u00dfen Regional Court, the parties had agreed that the tenant would take on certain tasks in the communal areas of the building and support the landlord, who also lived in the building. When the landlord moved into a retirement home, he no longer needed this support and sent the tenant a new draft of the tenancy agreement with a standard local rent. When the tenant rejected the contract amendment, the landlord cancelled the tenancy agreement. On 22 July 2022, he brought an action against the tenant for eviction and surrender of the rented premises before Giessen Local Court.<\/p>\n
<\/span>After the services (gardening) were no longer needed, the landlord wanted the standard local rent<\/span><\/h3>\nThe parties had agreed in Section 17 of their rental agreement that the defendant's performance obligations should constitute consideration for a lower rent. Therefore, the amount of the rent was to be renegotiated if one of the counter-performances was cancelled. After the plaintiff decided to move to a retirement home following a fall on 15.01.22, he no longer required the contractually agreed support services from the defendant. Despite the agreement, the defendant had not taken over the maintenance of the garden up to this point. The plaintiff therefore sent the defendant a new rental agreement at the beginning of March 2022, with a rent that was customary for the location.<\/p>\n
<\/span>When the tenant refused to conclude a new contract, the landlord cancelled the rental agreement<\/span><\/h3>\nAs the defendant did not sign this, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy without notice on 30 March 2022 with effect from 31 March 2022, or alternatively at the earliest possible date, stating a deadline for eviction of 30 April 2022. The defendant is of the opinion that the termination is invalid. \u00a7 Section 17 of the rental agreement merely establishes an obligation of the parties to negotiate an adjustment of the rent, but no right of termination if the parties do not reach an agreement in this regard. Furthermore, the sending of the new rental agreement by the plaintiff did not constitute a willingness to negotiate.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Nevertheless, the tenant vacated the rented property following an action for eviction, after which the parties argued about the costs<\/span><\/h3>\nAfter the defendant vacated the rented property and handed it over to the plaintiff on 31 August 2022, the plaintiff declared the action settled and requested that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs of the legal dispute. The Giessen District Court set aside the costs of the legal dispute by order dated 21 October 2022 in accordance with Section 91a ZPO, stating that this was the rule if, as in this case, no evidence had been taken. The defendant lodged an immediate appeal against this decision on 3 November 2022 in accordance with Section 567 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a result of which the Giessen Local Court referred the matter to the Giessen Regional Court on 28 November 2022.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Decision of the Regional Court of Gie\u00dfen<\/u><\/span><\/h2>\n<\/span>The court ruled that the landlord had the right to terminate the contract<\/span><\/h3>\nThe court ruled that the appeal was admissible but not well-founded. However, the decision on costs by the Giessen Local Court was not overturned on the basis of the principles of reformatio in peius.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff had a right to terminate the tenancy on the basis of the agreement in Section 17 of the tenancy agreement and the tenancy agreement was therefore terminated by the notice of termination on 30 April 2022.<\/p>\n
Firstly, the court stated that, contrary to the assumption of the Gie\u00dfen district court, the decision on costs did not depend on the taking of evidence. The only decisive factor was whether Section 17 of the tenancy agreement gave rise to a right of termination on the part of the landlord. This was the case here; the landlord could terminate the tenancy agreement for cause.<\/p>\n
<\/span>It had been agreed in the rental contract that there would be a right of cancellation if the service obligation ceased to apply<\/span><\/h3>\nThe plaintiff cited the future cancellation of the defendant's performance obligation set out in Section 17 of the rental agreement as good cause for extraordinary termination in accordance with Section 543 (1) BGB. Good cause requires that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to adhere to the contract until the expiry of the notice period, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and in particular weighing up the interests of both parties. In this regard, it must first be taken into account that the cancellation of the requirement for consideration is the responsibility of the plaintiff, but in any case represents a legitimate interest in amending the contract. On the other hand, the rental agreement expressly stipulates that the performance obligation constitutes consideration for a lower rent.<\/p>\n
Therefore, like the payment of rent, it is a primary obligation of the tenant, not merely an ancillary service. This agreement constitutes a service contract linked to the rental agreement, which is synallagmatic to the provision of the rented premises. This service contract can therefore be terminated with the notice period of \u00a7 621 No. 3 BGB if the consideration ceases to exist.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Tenant could no longer avoid paying proper rent<\/span><\/h3>\nIn addition, the sending of the new tenancy agreement by the landlord on 7 March 2022 should be seen as an offer to conclude a contract. This is usually to be understood as entering into contract negotiations and therefore complies with the provisions of Section 17 of the tenancy agreement. The pre-formulation of the contract does not indicate a lack of willingness to negotiate on the part of the landlord, but merely a statement that he wishes to conclude a contract on these terms. Furthermore, the contractual obligation to negotiate could not restrict the landlord's right of cancellation. This would not correspond to the meaning and purpose of the provision. The tenant could then permanently evade a rent increase by pretending to be willing to negotiate without ever concluding a contract at an adjusted rent, and the provision would ultimately come to nothing.<\/p>\n
Source: LG Gie\u00dfen<\/p>\n
As the defendant did not sign this, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy without notice on 30 March 2022 with effect from 31 March 2022, or alternatively at the earliest possible date, stating a deadline for eviction of 30 April 2022. The defendant is of the opinion that the termination is invalid. \u00a7 Section 17 of the rental agreement merely establishes an obligation of the parties to negotiate an adjustment of the rent, but no right of termination if the parties do not reach an agreement in this regard. Furthermore, the sending of the new rental agreement by the plaintiff did not constitute a willingness to negotiate.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Nevertheless, the tenant vacated the rented property following an action for eviction, after which the parties argued about the costs<\/span><\/h3>\nAfter the defendant vacated the rented property and handed it over to the plaintiff on 31 August 2022, the plaintiff declared the action settled and requested that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs of the legal dispute. The Giessen District Court set aside the costs of the legal dispute by order dated 21 October 2022 in accordance with Section 91a ZPO, stating that this was the rule if, as in this case, no evidence had been taken. The defendant lodged an immediate appeal against this decision on 3 November 2022 in accordance with Section 567 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a result of which the Giessen Local Court referred the matter to the Giessen Regional Court on 28 November 2022.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Decision of the Regional Court of Gie\u00dfen<\/u><\/span><\/h2>\n<\/span>The court ruled that the landlord had the right to terminate the contract<\/span><\/h3>\nThe court ruled that the appeal was admissible but not well-founded. However, the decision on costs by the Giessen Local Court was not overturned on the basis of the principles of reformatio in peius.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff had a right to terminate the tenancy on the basis of the agreement in Section 17 of the tenancy agreement and the tenancy agreement was therefore terminated by the notice of termination on 30 April 2022.<\/p>\n
Firstly, the court stated that, contrary to the assumption of the Gie\u00dfen district court, the decision on costs did not depend on the taking of evidence. The only decisive factor was whether Section 17 of the tenancy agreement gave rise to a right of termination on the part of the landlord. This was the case here; the landlord could terminate the tenancy agreement for cause.<\/p>\n
<\/span>It had been agreed in the rental contract that there would be a right of cancellation if the service obligation ceased to apply<\/span><\/h3>\nThe plaintiff cited the future cancellation of the defendant's performance obligation set out in Section 17 of the rental agreement as good cause for extraordinary termination in accordance with Section 543 (1) BGB. Good cause requires that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to adhere to the contract until the expiry of the notice period, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and in particular weighing up the interests of both parties. In this regard, it must first be taken into account that the cancellation of the requirement for consideration is the responsibility of the plaintiff, but in any case represents a legitimate interest in amending the contract. On the other hand, the rental agreement expressly stipulates that the performance obligation constitutes consideration for a lower rent.<\/p>\n
Therefore, like the payment of rent, it is a primary obligation of the tenant, not merely an ancillary service. This agreement constitutes a service contract linked to the rental agreement, which is synallagmatic to the provision of the rented premises. This service contract can therefore be terminated with the notice period of \u00a7 621 No. 3 BGB if the consideration ceases to exist.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Tenant could no longer avoid paying proper rent<\/span><\/h3>\nIn addition, the sending of the new tenancy agreement by the landlord on 7 March 2022 should be seen as an offer to conclude a contract. This is usually to be understood as entering into contract negotiations and therefore complies with the provisions of Section 17 of the tenancy agreement. The pre-formulation of the contract does not indicate a lack of willingness to negotiate on the part of the landlord, but merely a statement that he wishes to conclude a contract on these terms. Furthermore, the contractual obligation to negotiate could not restrict the landlord's right of cancellation. This would not correspond to the meaning and purpose of the provision. The tenant could then permanently evade a rent increase by pretending to be willing to negotiate without ever concluding a contract at an adjusted rent, and the provision would ultimately come to nothing.<\/p>\n
Source: LG Gie\u00dfen<\/p>\n
<\/span>The court ruled that the landlord had the right to terminate the contract<\/span><\/h3>\nThe court ruled that the appeal was admissible but not well-founded. However, the decision on costs by the Giessen Local Court was not overturned on the basis of the principles of reformatio in peius.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff had a right to terminate the tenancy on the basis of the agreement in Section 17 of the tenancy agreement and the tenancy agreement was therefore terminated by the notice of termination on 30 April 2022.<\/p>\n
Firstly, the court stated that, contrary to the assumption of the Gie\u00dfen district court, the decision on costs did not depend on the taking of evidence. The only decisive factor was whether Section 17 of the tenancy agreement gave rise to a right of termination on the part of the landlord. This was the case here; the landlord could terminate the tenancy agreement for cause.<\/p>\n
<\/span>It had been agreed in the rental contract that there would be a right of cancellation if the service obligation ceased to apply<\/span><\/h3>\nThe plaintiff cited the future cancellation of the defendant's performance obligation set out in Section 17 of the rental agreement as good cause for extraordinary termination in accordance with Section 543 (1) BGB. Good cause requires that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to adhere to the contract until the expiry of the notice period, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and in particular weighing up the interests of both parties. In this regard, it must first be taken into account that the cancellation of the requirement for consideration is the responsibility of the plaintiff, but in any case represents a legitimate interest in amending the contract. On the other hand, the rental agreement expressly stipulates that the performance obligation constitutes consideration for a lower rent.<\/p>\n
Therefore, like the payment of rent, it is a primary obligation of the tenant, not merely an ancillary service. This agreement constitutes a service contract linked to the rental agreement, which is synallagmatic to the provision of the rented premises. This service contract can therefore be terminated with the notice period of \u00a7 621 No. 3 BGB if the consideration ceases to exist.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Tenant could no longer avoid paying proper rent<\/span><\/h3>\nIn addition, the sending of the new tenancy agreement by the landlord on 7 March 2022 should be seen as an offer to conclude a contract. This is usually to be understood as entering into contract negotiations and therefore complies with the provisions of Section 17 of the tenancy agreement. The pre-formulation of the contract does not indicate a lack of willingness to negotiate on the part of the landlord, but merely a statement that he wishes to conclude a contract on these terms. Furthermore, the contractual obligation to negotiate could not restrict the landlord's right of cancellation. This would not correspond to the meaning and purpose of the provision. The tenant could then permanently evade a rent increase by pretending to be willing to negotiate without ever concluding a contract at an adjusted rent, and the provision would ultimately come to nothing.<\/p>\n
Source: LG Gie\u00dfen<\/p>\n
The plaintiff cited the future cancellation of the defendant's performance obligation set out in Section 17 of the rental agreement as good cause for extraordinary termination in accordance with Section 543 (1) BGB. Good cause requires that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to adhere to the contract until the expiry of the notice period, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case and in particular weighing up the interests of both parties. In this regard, it must first be taken into account that the cancellation of the requirement for consideration is the responsibility of the plaintiff, but in any case represents a legitimate interest in amending the contract. On the other hand, the rental agreement expressly stipulates that the performance obligation constitutes consideration for a lower rent.<\/p>\n
Therefore, like the payment of rent, it is a primary obligation of the tenant, not merely an ancillary service. This agreement constitutes a service contract linked to the rental agreement, which is synallagmatic to the provision of the rented premises. This service contract can therefore be terminated with the notice period of \u00a7 621 No. 3 BGB if the consideration ceases to exist.<\/p>\n