A dispute in the stairwell escalates, a tenant insults the landlord – and is fired for it. Rightly so, judges the District Court. In fact, it was just a trifle.
Even the good Ohnsorg Theater in the 1960s had no objection to sensible gossip in the stairwell. But if the gossip turns into a verbal argument with minor violence, it can have serious consequences. For example, after an insult in the stairwell, a landlord terminated the long-term tenants of an apartment without notice because he considered the relationship of trust to be shattered. The district court sided with the landlord.
It was a trifle that got a huge ball rolling: The four tenants have been living in the five-room apartment in Oberschleißheim since 2006, as Lutz Lauffer, press spokesman at the district court, announced. In the property with several residential units, house rules stipulate that objects such as bicycles or prams may not be parked in the garage driveway, in the corridors or in the stairwell without the consent of the landlord. Nevertheless, two tenants parked their bikes in the entrance area, handicapping a family who could no longer get through with their pram. The tenants were rung and asked for help, but the wheels stopped.
“Who are you? Shut up!”
In the next step, the family asked the landlord for help. The joint conversation at the apartment door of the tenants escalated. One of the residents snapped at the landlord: “Who are you? Shut up!” To do this, he guided his hand in the direction of the landlord’s upper body, so that he had to dodge. The conversation was thus over, the landlord filed a criminal complaint and gave the four tenants the notice of termination without notice.
The dismissal was legal, now found a civil court. The reprimand of the landlord in the presence of other residents represents disrespect and disregard because it “degrades the landlord to an inhuman level”. In addition, the insult was flanked by an act of violence “which at the same time at least had a coercive character”. A warning before the dismissal was not necessary. Because of the serious insult “the trust that is essential for the fulfillment of the contract was destroyed”. And even if only one of the four tenants had defaulted, the termination affects everyone. The court ruled that the culpable breach of duty by only one tenant is also at the expense of the other tenants (Az: 473 C 9473/21).
The judge granted an eviction period until the end of July. And that’s only because the defendant’s state of health is poor and the pandemic situation is making it difficult to find an apartment. The verdict is not yet legally binding.