BGH VIII ZR 228/23 (28 Jan 2026): profit sublets aren’t a ‘berechtigtes Interesse’ under §553 BGB

What the BGH decided on 28 January 2026

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled in case VIII ZR 228/23 that a tenant has no claim to the landlord’s consent to sublet if the intended sublease yields a profit above the tenant’s own housing‑related outgoings. Profit‑making sublets are not a “berechtigtes Interesse” within the meaning of §553(1) sentence 1 BGB. The Court confirmed that wanting to reduce one’s own housing costs can be a legitimate interest, but drawing a profit is not. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf))

The facts matter for investors who buy with existing tenants. In Berlin, a tenant paying €460 net cold rent sublet the flat to two subtenants for €962 net (total €1,100 incl. running‑cost advances). After a written warning failed, the landlord terminated the lease in February 2022. The trial court dismissed the claim; the Berlin Court of Appeal (LG Berlin, 64 S 270/22) reversed, and the BGH dismissed the tenant’s final appeal on 28 January 2026. ([heckschen-salomon.de](https://www.heckschen-salomon.de/rechtsprechung-detail/unzulaessigkeit-der-gewinnbringenden-untervermietung-von-wohnraum.html))

Importantly for enforcement, the BGH held that an unapproved, profit‑making sublet is a culpable, non‑trivial breach that can justify ordinary termination under §573(1) and §573(2) no. 1 BGB. Subtenants enjoy weaker protection: if the head lease ends, they can be required to vacate under §546(2) BGB. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf))

The Court also rejected arguments that §553(2) BGB somehow entitles the landlord to “share” in any subletting profit. §553(2) allows only a reasonable rent increase where consent is given; it is not a profit‑participation clause. ([app.omnilex.ai](https://app.omnilex.ai/de/sources/court-decision/de-rii--kore701912026/bgh-2026-01-28-viii-zr-22823))

Where the line now sits under §553 BGB

The BGH restated the long‑standing test: any post‑contract interest of non‑trivial weight compatible with the legal and social order can be “berechtigt” under §553(1) BGB; reducing one’s own outgoings generally qualifies. What does not qualify is a sublease that generates income above the tenant’s housing‑related outgoings (net rent plus operating and heating advances in the case record). ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf))

Two practical contours follow. First, consent cannot be compelled where the head tenant’s model depends on arbitrage. Second, if a landlord does agree to subletting, §553(2) BGB permits only a reasonable rent increase linked to the extra wear and occupancy; there is no statutory right to “profit sharing”. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf))

The Court left one edge case open: whether additional services the head tenant provides to a subtenant (e.g., linen, cleaning, internet) can reduce what counts as “profit” wasn’t decided, because the amounts in this case far exceeded the main rent. Expect factual disputes on this point in furnished settings. ([doctrine.de](https://www.doctrine.de/decisions/deudecpta7bwgx6hgi1jz?utm_source=openai))

Finally, although the Berlin flat lay in a rent‑brake area (maximum net cold rent calculated at €748 in the appellate record), the BGH didn’t need to decide subletting through the lens of §§556d ff. BGB; the profit finding was enough to dispose of the case. ([heckschen-salomon.de](https://www.heckschen-salomon.de/rechtsprechung-detail/unzulaessigkeit-der-gewinnbringenden-untervermietung-von-wohnraum.html))

Risks for ‘Wohnen auf Zeit’ landlords and head‑lease models

The decision narrows the room for rent‑arbitrage structures where a company or individual takes a head lease and re‑lets furnished units short‑term at higher prices. Where consent to sublet is refused or not obtained, a profit‑making sublet can justify ordinary termination under §573(2) no. 1 BGB. Subtenants then risk having to vacate under §546(2) BGB once the head lease ends. For owners buying leased property, that creates both an enforcement path and operational risk if you inherit such a setup mid‑term. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf))

Common pressure points: - Existing tenants who seek sublet consent for time‑limited, furnished lets above cost price. They now have no statutory claim to consent for profit‑making sublets. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf)) - Intermediaries running “Wohnen auf Zeit” under a head lease. Their business cannot rely on §553 BGB to force consent; without negotiated permission, termination risk is material. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf)) - Clearance logistics. Even where you are in the right, you must evidence the profit (subrent versus housing‑related outgoings) and follow the warn‑then‑terminate sequence properly. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf))

One misconception the BGH dispelled: landlords cannot demand a share of the subletting profit as the price of consent under §553(2) BGB. If you choose to permit subletting, the tool the code provides is a reasonable rent uplift, not revenue‑sharing. Draft accordingly. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf))

How to respond: policy, drafting and evidence

- Screen head‑lease counterparties. If an operator’s model depends on charging subtenants materially above the head rent and charges, expect no statutory right to consent. Make any permission explicit, time‑limited and revocable on non‑compliance. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf)) - Define “housing‑related outgoings” in consents. Specify which items count (e.g., net rent, operating and heating advances) and require disclosure of the subrent. The BGH left open whether extra services can offset “profit”, so require a line‑item breakdown. ([doctrine.de](https://www.doctrine.de/decisions/deudecpta7bwgx6hgi1jz?utm_source=openai)) - Use §553(2) BGB properly. Where you do consent, document a reasonable rent increase for extra occupancy or wear. Do not draft “profit‑share” clauses as if §553(2) authorised them. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf)) - Enforce in steps. Monitor listings, send a written warning (Abmahnung), collect evidence of profit (statements, ads, bank data if available), then give ordinary notice under §573(2) no. 1 BGB if the breach persists. Subtenants may have to vacate once the head lease ends. ([zfir-online.de](https://www.zfir-online.de/fileadmin/Volltexte-4/VIII_ZR_228-23.pdf)) - Get local advice. Interplay with rent control rules (§§556d ff. BGB) and municipal use‑rules sits outside this case but can still bite in cities like Berlin. Instruct a Fachanwalt für Miet‑ und Wohnungseigentumsrecht before terminating. ([heckschen-salomon.de](https://www.heckschen-salomon.de/rechtsprechung-detail/unzulaessigkeit-der-gewinnbringenden-untervermietung-von-wohnraum.html))