Facts
In this case, it was about a complaint by A. AG against B. and co-participants regarding a rent increase due to extensive investments in the renovation of the properties. The lower court had partially rejected the rent increase, as it did not classify the properties as old buildings and therefore allowed the objection of excessive return. Furthermore, the lower court had only allowed the interest on the extraordinary maintenance costs at an average interest rate of 1.75%.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court found that the lower court had not violated federal law by not qualifying the 26- and 27-year-old properties as old buildings. According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, properties must have been "built or acquired several decades ago" to be considered old buildings, where the adjustment of the rent to the local or district-typical level is the priority. The properties in question did not meet these requirements.
Furthermore, the appellant had not shown that the evidence for the investment costs would no longer be available and that a net yield calculation would therefore lead to unrealistic results. Therefore, it was…