When the tenant gets a dog

Pet ownership, and especially dog ​​ownership, repeatedly causes stress and disputes between landlords and tenants and continues to keep the courts busy. In a recent case, the Munich District Court ordered a group of landlords, who were also heirs, to allow a married couple in Munich-Neuhausen to keep a dog.

To avoid problems with their neighbors, the tenants of a four-and-a-half-room apartment in Munich, who wanted to get their two children a dog from an animal shelter, consulted their neighbors beforehand. While the neighbors accepted the plan, the owners, a group of landlords who were heirs, rejected the family's request. They explained that they had never before allowed any tenant to keep a dog. Furthermore, the landlords expressed concerns about the animal's care: the school-aged children (13 and 15 years old) could only look after the dog after 4 p.m., and both parents worked full-time.

The court ruled in favor of the tenants.

The family did not accept the rejection and ultimately filed a lawsuit in the Munich District Court. The court ruled in favor of the tenants (case number 411 C 976/18), as the reasons given by the landlord for the rejection were insufficient to prohibit keeping a dog: the apartment offered ample space for keeping a dog, and green spaces for walks were easily and quickly accessible.
The court reasoned that the animal's welfare was not in question, as the plaintiff couple could point to their many years of experience in keeping and training dogs, as well as letters of recommendation from a dog trainer and the animal shelter for the desired breed. Furthermore, the wife only worked part-time, and the children came home from school at lunchtime. During vacation periods, the grandparents were willing to care for the dog.

Species-appropriate husbandry and training.

With proper care and training, it was not expected that the dog would draw attention to itself through excessive howling or barking, or cause damage to the apartment. The plaintiffs had also agreed to take out appropriate insurance. The animal's breed, a Magyar Vizsla, also gave no cause for concern. The Hungarian Vizsla is considered friendly, sensitive, and even-tempered. The landlord's refusal was based on general concerns; there was no concrete evidence of an anticipated unreasonable nuisance, the district court ruled. The dog was therefore allowed to move in.

A general prohibition is inadmissible.

Nevertheless, keeping a dog in a rented apartment remains a case-by-case decision and requires the landlord's permission, even though a general prohibition on keeping dogs and cats through a clause in the lease is not permissible. The Eighth Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice ruled in March 2013 (VIII ZR 168/12) that a general prohibition unfairly disadvantages the tenant and contradicts the fundamental principle of the landlord's obligation to provide the tenant with the use of the property. Whether keeping a pet is compatible with the contractual use of the apartment must be decided on a case-by-case basis through a comprehensive balancing of interests. This requires considering the needs and interests not only of the parties to the lease but also of other residents and neighbors, as has already been done in this case.

However, if the four-legged friend proves to be a nuisance, for example by constantly barking or soiling the communal areas, and attracts the displeasure of the residents, its keeping can be prohibited even retroactively.

Guide dogs and therapy dogs are exempt from all these regulations. They do not require a permit, but must have proof of their special suitability.

Sources: Munich Local Court, press release dated March 1, 2019, mietrecht.com, dejure.org, juris, bundesgerichtshof.de, urteile-mietrecht.net, immonet.de