dishes under its own dismissals in each individual case need consider carefully whether a tenant must leave the apartment or whether he is allowed to stay due to hardship. The Federal court of justice (BGH) pointed out during two negotiations on captive terminations.

The Supreme court dealt with two different cases in which the courts had their own needs in the owner confirmed. In the first case, it is allowed to remain, according to a judgment of the Berlin regional court, an Elderly woman still in the apartment: The 80-Year-old, who lives for 45 years, and dementia has been proven to be a hardship. In contrast, a family put father review before the Federal court of justice. The family with two small children living in a Two bedroom apartment and need more space (VIII ZR 180/18).

In the other case, two tenants fight back with reference to various diseases against the eviction of a semi-detached house in the small town of Kabelsketal in Saxony-Anhalt. The lower court was of the view that a move like this is the tenants reasonable. Against these complained in front of the BGH (VIII ZR 167/17).

in the face of a housing shortage and a growing number of older tenants, the hardness clause in the courts is an issue of growing problems. The Supreme court sees, therefore, there is a tendency in many cases are schematically and “not in the necessary depth” solved. He wants to 22, apparently with its Judgments on. May encounter.

At the hearing in Karlsruhe, it is suggested that the verdicts be overturned by the Federal court of justice. In both cases, the highest German civil court missing a thorough examination. Which deterioration is to be feared due to a relocation for a renter, specifically, it must, if necessary, to clarify an appraiser.