The Federal court of justice (BGH) has strengthened the rights of tenants at the termination of protection. In the present case, had resisted the tenant from Bochum to their apartments after 37 years, the rooms – although a life-long security of tenure was assured. Contract in a contract of sale which was concluded years ago between the city – the previous owners and the buyers of the property. The Supreme court ruled that the clauses in that contract of sale have to be valid and the tenant can stay in their homes. (Az. VIII ZR 109/18)
The house had heard to 2012, of the city, then it was sold. In the purchase agreement: “The tenants have a lifelong right of residence. The buyer takes over the existing tenancy.” Nevertheless, you has terminated, the new owner. For this case, has reserved the right to the city a right of purchase. The background is, according to a city spokesperson, that the property was purchased along with several others in the seventies of a mine Association. The lives of the mountain people have had a life-long right of residence, which have taken over the city. The clause is not standard in real estate purchase contracts.
The Supreme court ruled, in the case of the purchase contract contained provisions to the life-long right of residence if it were a “real contract in favour of third parties”. The buyer could not rely on the fact that the ban on Dismissal is inappropriate at a disadvantage. The city of Bochum was trying to protect long-standing tenants, “is not at all surprising”. The content of the notice is adequate protection for long term tenants in the settlement house, said the presiding judge Karin Milger, in the opinion of the court.
According to the verdict, local authorities can protect the sale of their real estate tenants in the future, effective against terminations.
landlords will need for the termination of a basic
Already explained, the district court and the regional court of Bochum had the notice of the purchaser null and void. In contrast, the landlords were then to the military: they filed a Revision and argued that the tenant will not be able to rely on the clause in the purchase contract.
other than the tenant cannot terminate the landlord, in principle, for a reason. A recognized reason is classic, if required, intrinsically, so that the landlord needs the apartment for himself or for relatives. The law also allows the notice of termination, if the landlord otherwise “would be prevented from reasonable economic utilization of the land”. Both of these possibilities, the city expressly in the clause in the purchase contract.
The owner had tried before the Supreme court, to argue with a special right of termination. This applies to houses with two apartments in which the landlord lives. In this case, it doesn’t need a reason for termination.