Reader question: What specific indications and documents are needed to assess whether I can be recognised as the main tenant under §2 paragraph 3 MRG?
You live in Austria under a contract described as a sublease. There are now concrete indications that an intermediary was used only to circumvent the rights of the direct main tenants. In this situation an ordinary request for permission to sublet is not the appropriate matter. §2 paragraph 3 MRG provides, under its conditions, for recognition as the main tenant. [MRG2]
The chain of contracts remains the first point of scrutiny
Not every contract with a person other than the owner is a sublease. §2 paragraph 1 names other main-tenancy constellations, including the renting out by a tenant or lessee of an entire building. Paragraph 2 defines the remaining sublease category. [MRG2]
Therefore lay your contract, known upstream legal relationships and the rooms actually offered side by side. Record which information is evidenced. A similar family name, a shared office or an unusually high price does not by itself prove a particular circumvention arrangement.
Formulate the legal question concretely
§2 paragraph 3 links to the requirement that when considering all circumstances no reasonable doubt remains that the main tenancy contract was concluded only for subletting and to circumvent the main tenants’ rights. It enables the subtenant to seek recognition with the statutory rights and obligations. [MRG2]
The desired status is therefore more than a cheaper price for a sublease otherwise taken to be unchanged. Have scope and actual prerequisites examined first. An alleged grievance is not removed by a private change of the contract heading.
Which indications are highlighted by the law?
The provision specifically names two constellations: the main tenant rents out more than one flat in the same building entirely as sublets, or in the case of a fixed-term main tenancy contract the flat is rented out entirely as a sublet. If concrete indications of circumvention are present, under the statutory rule the respondent must prove the absence of an intent to circumvent. [MRG2]
Our preparatory recommendation: Arrange evidential information on exactly these questions. How many flats, which building, whole flat or part, and what known main contract duration? Describe the source of each piece of information. Do not enter other people’s flats on your own behalf and do not repeat missing contracts as if they were supposedly secured.
Fictitious case with a targeted evidence question
A resident has a contract for the whole flat. Correspondence on hand shows that the intermediary offers several whole flats in the building. Reliable information on the duration of her upstream contract is lacking.
The resident records this distinction: the multi-flat indication is submitted for scrutiny with available documents, the unknown fixed term remains unknown. She does not claim that all the flats belong to the intermediary, and she does not decide the recognition claim herself. The consultation can now examine specific indications and the associated rule of evidence.
Bring the correct claim to the appropriate procedure
§37 paragraph 1 number 1 lists recognition under §2 paragraph 3 as a distinct matter before the locally competent district court. A preliminary municipal route relevant under §39 must be examined as well. [MRG37][MRG39] An informal enquiry to any property management company is therefore not already the formal recognition application.
In particular have participants, the application, available evidence and the correct filing route clarified. Until the decision, ongoing payment also remains a separate matter for advice. The article does not endorse an unauthorised change of the payee or stopping payments. It leads from mere suspicion to a clearly specified claim to status with verifiable facts.