Tenancy law

Client’s claim against landlady of their apartment for reimbursement of the costs of replacement accommodation during water damage in the rented apartment from assigned right was enforced in full in the appeal proceedings against all objections on the part of the landlady and the court of first instance.

District Court Berlin-Verdict of 12.02.2019


Counterclaim for client against landlords of her apartment for the removal of moisture stains was successful, as landlords could not prove that the moisture stains were not due to the structure of the house.

Local Court Wedding-Verdict of 10.08..2005


Offsetting the claim of the landlord of client’s apartment for damages due to delay in eviction against client’s claim for repayment of the deposit was rejected by the appellate court as unfounded because the landlord had neither shown that he could have rented out the apartment immediately if he had vacated the apartment in good time, nor that he had not been able to re-let the apartment despite appropriate efforts. In contrast to consequential damage caused by termination, the burden of proof in the case of damages due to delay in eviction lies with the landlord.

District Court Berlin-Verdict of 15.11.2011


The client’s landlord’s action for eviction due to arrears in rent was also rejected in the appeal proceedings because the client reduced the rent and rightly exercised her right of retention in the amount of four times the reduction amount.

District Court Berlin-Verdict of 22.04.2015


Defense against eviction action by landlady of client’s apartment due to arrears in rent was successful because the landlady’s termination without notice had become invalid through full payment within the grace period of Section 569 (3) No. 2 BGB and the landlady had no legitimate interest in her alternatively declared ordinary termination in accordance with Section 573 (1) and (2) No. 1 BGB.

Local Court Wedding-Partial Verdict of 21.11.2017


Counterclaims by the landlady of the client’s apartment against the client’s claim for payment of ancillary cost credit were also rejected by the appellate court as unfounded because they were forfeited in accordance with Section 242 BGB.

District Court Berlin-Verdict of 19.04.2002


Incorrect decision of the first court on the provisional enforceability of modernization measures by the landlady of the client’s apartment was corrected by the appellate court on appeal on behalf of the client.

District Court Berlin-Partial Verdict of 07.01.2016


Bepi Uletilovic - Profil

+ 49 (0) 30/ 79701389