The defendants are tenants of an apartment by the applicant in Friedberg. The lease was in 2004, concluded with the previous owner of the house in the upper floor is the apartment of the defendant. At the time, next to the apartment on the ground floor apartment in a Basement of the house, rented consisting of a living room with kitchenette and bathroom, to third parties. When the applicant purchased the house in 2006, the lease was no longer on the basement. The applicant moved into the apartment with her husband on the ground floor and uses the premises in the basement as additional rooms (waiting room, ironing and work).
The applicant announced the lease based on § 573a para 1 BGB *. Raised by her eviction action was dismissed by the District Court. The district court dismissed the appeal by the applicant.
The directed against the revision of the applicant has been rejected by among others, responsible for the Housing Tenancy Eighth Civil Division of the Federal Court. To assess whether there are in a building more than two dwellings, the traffic view will prevail. Under a flat generally an independent, economically and geographically defined area is understood to allow an independent financial management. According to the findings of the court's premises meet in the basement of the house the applicant of these requirements, because in addition to a 42 sqm living room, they have a kitchen and a diner with Toilet.
The fact of the existence of three apartments in the residence of the applicant has not changed in that the applicant to the basement rooms has built in their residential area by the apartment since the purchase of the house in 2006 as Visitors, ironing use and study. For this expansion of the residential area of the applicant, once given the housing stock has not reduced. The Court of Appeal has given reasons for his dissenting views on injustice in the Senate decision of 25 June 2008 (VIII ZR 307/07) supported. The Senate approved this decision of trial judge determining the allocation of complementary Rooms on two floors did not prevent the adoption of a (single) apartment was based on different factual circumstances. The respective areas on the top floor of that building featured - other than the apartment in the house of the applicant - not an independent apartment dar.
Since the apartment from the entry of the defendant was on notice of dismissal to a separate apartment, were the conditions of facilitated termination under § 573a para 1 BGB met at any time. Therefore needed in the instance to law and legal writing controversial question of whether it regards the housing stock on the date of commencement of the tenancy or the date of termination arrives, any decision.
* § 573a BGB: Ease of termination of the landlord
(1) A lease of an apartment in a by owner-occupied buildings with no more than two may terminate the rental apartments and without it one legitimate interest within the meaning of § 573 requires. The notice period is extended in this case by three months.
Case of 17 November 2010 - VIII ZR 90/10
AG Friedberg (Hessen) - Case of 7 August 2009 - 2 C 529/09
LG Gießen - Case of 24 February 2010 - 1 S 239/09
Source: Press Release No. 219/2010 dated 11.17.2010 of the press office of the Federal
Source: © pauline / PIXELIO ; http://www.pixelio.de/
Source: © pauline / PIXELIO ; http://www.pixelio.de/
Communicated by:
tenant assistance eV
counseling Aschaffenburg
adhesive 6-8
63739 Aschaffenburg
Phone: 06021/365816
tenant assistance eV
counseling Dieburg
stock Strasse 49 64807
Phone: 06071/9816816
0 comments:
Post a Comment