Illness of the tenant can avoid termination due to own needs
In a current court judgment, it was made clear that the termination of an apartment due to demand caused by the existential may fail the health risks of the tenant.
Serious Health Impairments
About two years ago, the Federal court of justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe, a judgment in which it was made clear that landlords are not able to put a tenant in the case of threat of serious adverse Health effects just in front of the door. The district court of Munich has now made a similar judgment, and recently published.
Action by the landlord dismissed
According to a recent communication from the district court of Munich dismissed the 28.09.2017 the lawsuit against a 52-year-old tenant on eviction from her rented One-room-apartment in Munich-Langwied and release to the captive plaintive landlord.
According to the figures, the plaintiff couple from the room Dingolfing had acquired-Landau since 1998, the defendant rented the apartment in August 2016, to provide you with the winter semester in 2017, their, then, in Munich students, 21-year-old daughter on a rental basis.
On this own needs, having regard to the tenant announced in October 2016 to the 31.07.2017.
The defendant raised, however, appeal against the notice and established him so that you have a solidified depressive disorder and an anxiety disorder and the loss of home and familiar surroundings would lead to an acute further deterioration of their disease, and of acute suicidality should be assumed.
The daughter of the plaintiff stated in her testimony to have already graduated from high school prior to her later studies in Munich seriously planned.
The defendant was before the court to suffer since their youth have mental health problems and have been in many cases unsuccessful a replacement dwelling.
The court agreed, undertaken, and the defendant for several years, attending psychiatrist testified that the patient must leave the prospect of their protected room, i.e. the apartment and the familiar surroundings, as the existential threat perceived by a move, her condition would worsen, both in terms of their Depression, as well as in terms of their anxiety disorder.
The danger of the implementation of the suicide idea in the event that you’d have to leave the apartment, a treasures of the expert due to the for years, treated by him or her pre-existing conditions are not 100 percent, but even in the case of inpatient treatment, or at least in the case of particularly close medical monitoring during a move as a serious.
The competent judge at the district court of Munich gave as a result of the defendant’s rights.
“The witness has given credible, that her parents had bought the apartment, in order to allow her a good Start in the study. The fact that the witness has not seen the disputed apartment itself surprising, but it is not for the court to the statement of the witness that there is no opportunity to do so and that their trust in their parents is so high that you would definitely take in one of them for you to selected apartment, at least understandable.“
According to the judge the lease, but in spite of the effective self-termination is required due to the request of the defendant pursuant to art. §§ 574 I 574 a I, II BGB for an indefinite period of time to continue.
“The termination of the tenancy, means, in the view of the court for the defendant an undue hardship that is not justified in view of the legitimate interests of the plaintiff. The defendant’s eviction, unable to pay.“
Judgment is now legally binding
As the judge explained, is not an eviction, inability to “if the tenant is on his or her physical or mental condition will be able to find a replacement apartment and to move there, or if the state of health or the General life situation of the tenant would be worsened by the move, with a serious risk of a significant health deterioration in the acceptance of an undue hardship can be justified.”
The judge continues: “That the existing mental illness of the defendant could be cured during the time in the meadows to the prevention of suicide, in a clinic, the court considers, after in the last nine years, despite various therapies, the stable phases are only occurred in a very reasonably short periods of time, as the witness has described, and after the witness has considered the prospects of success of a one-year behavioral treatment prognosis more reserved. (…)
The view of the court, the crucial difference between the daughter of the plaintiff and of the defendant is that the 21-year-old daughter of the plaintiff has no mental illness and is just at the beginning of their study life, the offers for healthy people from the point of view of the court a variety of ways. The interest of the plaintiff in obtaining the apartment must, therefore, against the interest of the defendant on receipt of the apartment, is the key to ensuring that your health is deteriorating due to a move further back.“
The judgment of the district court of Munich from the 28.09.2017, reference 433 C 10588/17, after the withdrawal of the appeal since 18.12.2018 legally.
The information, according to the court of appeal officer (other) psychiatric experts had confirmed the first-instance evaluation of the attending colleagues. (ad)