Out because of personal use - even though the landlord still lives with dad!

When property is suddenly more important than people

The case sounds like something from the script of a social drama, but it is a bitter reality: a Berlin woman is to leave her home after almost ten years - because the new owner wants to move in. Although his statements during the trial were contradictory and, according to his own statements, he still lives in his parents' children's room, the Charlottenburg district court ruled in his favor. The tenant Monika Smolarek has to leave. Even though she has been looking in vain for a new place to live for months.

For many, the ruling comes as a shock. Over 13,000 people have signed their petition against the dismissal. There was an oppressive silence in the courtroom when the verdict was announced. The judge ordered Smolarek to vacate the property by November 30, 2025 - and to pay the court costs.

Ownership obliges - or does it?

Particularly explosive: the statements made by the landlord, who bought the apartment in 2023 and registered his own use shortly afterwards, were anything but clear. He initially claimed not to own any property. Only under pressure and through meticulous research by tenant lawyer Carola Handwerg did it emerge that he was the co-owner of a corner building in Charlottenburg. He allegedly does not have access to it - only his father, who also happens to be his lawyer, does. The father, himself the owner of several properties, defended his son in court.

Despite these contradictions, the court ruled in favor of the landlord. The personal use was recognized as credible - even if many observers have doubts. After all, it makes a big difference whether someone actually has no other place to live or simply prefers to claim an old apartment for themselves.

Tenant protest grows - appeal planned

Despite the defeat, Smolarek is not thinking of giving up. She wants to appeal. After all, finding a new apartment is now almost impossible for many people in Berlin - especially for families with children and middle-income earners.

Supporters like Erika also show their solidarity: "Ms. Smolarek had the courage to go public and thus became the face of resistance against owner-occupier terminations." Many Berliners feel threatened by similar fates and recognize themselves in her case. For them, the trial is more than just an isolated case - it is emblematic of a city in which living space is degenerating into a commodity.

Legal - but morally wrong

What is happening here is legally sound - but socially questionable. Legislation allows for terminations for personal use if they are clearly justified. But when is personal use genuine - and when is it a pretext? If someone lives "in the children's room" but at the same time owns shares in Berlin, it looks more like a tactical move than a genuine housing emergency.

Anyone who can afford a house should also be able to provide an honest justification. The courts need to take a closer look in such cases - otherwise people will lose their homes when they don't need to.