Real estate in court: What a tenant can use to stop the own use of his apartment

Anyone who objects to a dismissal for health reasons or an unsuccessful search for accommodation is entitled to a thorough examination. Courts must not interpret such hardships narrowly or sweep them across the board, but must balance the interests of both sides completely. A man lived with his son from 1996 in an apartment building. The landlady announced because her granddaughter should move in. The tenant objected and presented medical certificates that a move seriously endangered his health. In addition, he had tried with about 400 apartment requests in vain for a replacement apartment. The district court denied the own needs and rejected the claim. How do tenants defend themselves against the self-service termination? The district court judged the desire to use evidence differently, heard the treating doctors and a psychologist as witnesses and ordered the eviction. The housing search treated it only casually. The Federal Court of Justice annulled the decision. The provision is not an exception, but a comprehensive regulation with careful consideration of both interests. Also missing replacement living space is a hardship of its own. To ignore these with empty formulas violates the legal hearing. Evidence was also flawed. If a tenant occupies imminent serious health risks by a specialist, an expert opinion must be obtained regularly. Treating doctors can only describe the previous and present condition as witnesses. The consequences of a move are a prognosis and a matter for an expert. Tenants should prove hardship reasons with meaningful certificates. A mere indication of a disease is not enough. Landlords, on the other hand, have to expect an eviction process to be extended as soon as an expert opinion becomes necessary (Federal Court, decision of 1 September 2026, reference number: VIII ZR 16/26). Fiona Ruby is a lawyer at the law firm Bethge in Hanover.